9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to pay service tax - Held that:- There is no merit in this allegation of the department - The construction services had already suffered service tax as the contractor who is engaged in the construction of building/complex has discharged service tax. Further, the circular also makes it clear that when a contractor is engaged in construction of residential complex, the liability is on the contractor to pay the service tax - The Tribunal in the case of Logos Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai [2018 (6) TMI 1361 - CESTAT CHENNAI] had occasion to consider a similar issue and has held that the demand cannot sustain. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. ST/275/2011 - Final Order No. 42 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Kerala Vs. Larsen Toubro Ltd. 2015 (39) STR 913 (SC) would be applicable and the demand of service tax prior to 1.6.2007 cannot sustain. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the said judgment has held that the composite contract can be subjected to levy of service tax only from1.6.2007 under works contract service. With regard to the demand of service tax after 1.6.2007, he submitted that when the said services fall under Works Contract Service prior to 1.6.2007, the demand for the same under construction of residential complex service cannot sustain, since the projects are ongoing projects from 2006 09. He relied upon the Board Circular No. 332/35/2006-TRU d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r / promoter which builds the residential complex using the services of a contractor is not liable to pay service tax and it is the contractor who is liable to pay. Undisputedly, the contractor has discharged the service tax on the construction activities. The demand is made against the appellant merely alleging that he is the main contractor and although the contractor has discharged the service tax, it is only the sub-contractor and therefore the appellant is liable to pay service ax. We do not find any merit in this allegation of the department. The construction services had already suffered service tax as the contractor who is engaged in the construction of building/complex has discharged service tax. Further, the circular also makes it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
