2018 (12) TMI 83

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t: Shri H. Singh, AR ORDER PER: ASHOK JINDAL The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand of service tax along with interest has been confirmed against the appellant for the period April, 2005 to March, 2010 under the category of construction of residential complex service and industrial construction service. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is eng .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er was taken by this Tribunal and this Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication. In de novo adjudication, the demand of service tax of Rs. 1,49,39,920/- has been confirmed. Against the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the activity undertaken by the appellant is in the nature of works contracts service .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... merit of classification of the said service provided by the appellant under the category of "works contract service" as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra) whereas the demand has been confirmed against the appellant under the category of "construction of residential complexes and commercial or industrial construction service". Therefore, the deman .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X