Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2024 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 567 - CESTAT CHENNAIRendering of construction services mainly to Government organizations - Failure to file ST-3 returns for the period from October 2009 for Management, Maintenance or Repair Service - availment of abatement of 67% while discharging service tax on Erection, Commissioning or Installation services - whether the demand of service tax raised under Construction of Residential Complex Service (RCS), Commercial or Industrial Construction Service (CICS) and Erection and Commissioning or Installation Services (ECIS) for the period 1.10.2007 to 31.3.2012 is sustainable or not? - HELD THAT:- It is seen from the records that the appellant has carried out contracts of composite nature which involves both use of materials as well as rendition of services. The demand of tax in the show cause notice has been quantified granting benefit of abatement which would establish that the contracts are composite in nature. The issue as to whether the demand of service tax can be made under RCS, CICS or ECIS in composite contracts was decided by Tribunal in the case of REAL VALUE PROMOTERS PVT. LTD., CEEBROS PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, PRIME DEVELOPERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [2018 (9) TMI 1149 - CESTAT CHENNAI]. The said decision was followed by the Tribunal in the case of M/S. JAIN HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI [2023 (2) TMI 1044 - CESTAT CHENNAI] which has been maintained by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Further in the case of M/S. SRINIVASA SHIPPING & PROPERTY DEVELOPERS LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [2023 (12) TMI 1003 - CESTAT CHENNAI] had followed the decision in the case of Real Value Promoters and set aside the demand. In the case of DELHI JAL BOARD CONTRACTORS WELFARE ASSOCIATION VERSUS UOI AND ORS [2018 (10) TMI 1702 - DELHI HIGH COURT]), the Hon’ble High Court held that in the case of indivisible composite works contract the demand under Erection and Commissioning or Installation Services cannot be sustained. The demand raised under the above three categories cannot sustain and requires to be set aside. The impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed.
|