9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1040X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demanded under Works Contract Service and not under CICS, etc. The impugned Order demanding the amount of tax liability under CICS for a composite contract will not survive - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No.: ST/00014/2012 - Final Order No. 40114/2019 - Dated:- 17-1-2019 - Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) And Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri. S. Ramachandran, Consultant for the Appellant Shri. K. Veerabhadra Reddy, ADC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Madhu Mohan Damodhar : The issue involved in this appeal concerns the demand of service tax liability on construction of mobile tower foundation and related civil works performed by the appellant for M/s. Bha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n terms of the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of C.C.E. Vs. M/s. Larsen Toubro Ltd. 2015 (39) S.T.R. 913 (S.C.), services rendered on indivisible Works Contract basis was not taxable prior to 01.07.2007. By following the ratio of the said judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court, the Chennai Bench of the CESTAT and other courts also in the following cases have held that there shall be no levy of service tax on the indivisible works contract for the period prior to 01.06.2007 and accordingly, set aside the demands made under Commercial and Industrial Construction Service. M/s. Vijay Shanthi Builders Ltd. Vs. Commr. of S.T. 2018 (9) G.S.T.L. 257 (Tri. Chennai); M/s. Trichy Construction Co. Vs. C.C.E., Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Chennai Bench of the CESTAT in the case of M/s/ Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Ors. Vs. Commissioner of G.S.T. Central Excise, Chennai Ors. in Final Order Nos. 42436-42438/2018 dated 18.09.2018 have extrapolated the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in M/s. Larsen Toubro Ltd. (supra) and held that even after 01.06.2007, service tax liability for composite contracts can only be demanded under Works Contract Service and not under CICS, etc. For this reason, the impugned Order demanding the amount of tax liability under CICS for a composite contract will not survive and will require to be set aside, which we hereby do. 7. The appeal is therefore allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law. (Pronoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
