9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of complex services and has not discharged the applicable service tax liability. On this ground, show cause notice was issued to appellant directing them to show cause as to why the service tax liability be not demanded along with interest and why penalties be not imposed. The appellant contested the show cause notice on merits putting forth the argument that prior to 01.06.2007 and post 01.06.2007 the contracts executed by them are works contract and not liable to tax prior to 01.06.2007 construction of staff quarters for CRPF, HAL and construction of administrative building for BSNL and Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation (APTDC) are not taxable under the service tax as these are for non-commercial purposes. The adjudicatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he submits since they had already paid service tax liability with interest, question of imposing any penalty does not arise. 4. Ld. DR on the other hand submits that the appellant during the period in question prior to and post 01.06.2007 has undertaken a work of the construction of residential premises though claimed by him as works contract, it is in fact nothing but construction of commercial and industrial services and construction of complex services. He would submit that construction activity undertaken by the appellant in constructing the quarters for CRPF or any other Government organizations is not exempted from tax and is liable to tax. He would also submit that the adjudicating authority has clearly recorded a finding that appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admitted fact, then in our considered view the same needs to considered on works contract services, accordingly the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Turbo (supra) would cover the issue in the favour of the appellant, as in the said judgment, the Apex Court has settled the law holding that prior to 01.06.2007, works contract services are not taxable by vivisecting into various services. Post 01.06.2007, the construction activity undertaken by the appellant for the Government organizations are not taxable, is the claim of the appellant which has been rejected by the adjudicating authority on a finding that appellant had undertaken this activity of construction of quarters as a sub-contractor for Central Public Works Departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... private parties, we remit the matter for this limited purpose to the adjudicating authority for verification. If it is ascertained that appellant has already discharged service tax liability post 01.06.2007 without collecting the same from service recipient, then there is no question of any liability of service tax on the services rendered to private parties. 8. In view of the foregoing, since the issue is covered by the various decisions of the Supreme Court and the Tribunal, the question of visiting the appellant with any penalty does not arise even in the case of tax liability in respect of the works executed for private parties. 9. The appeal stand disposed of as indicated herein. (Operative part of this order was pronounced in court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
