9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 872X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under 'Construction of Residential Complex Service' as defined in Section 65(91a) of the Finance Act, 1994 with interest thereon as also imposition of penalties under various provisions of law. In adjudication, the Original Authority confirmed the amounts proposed in the Show Cause Notice and imposed penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Act ibid. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Order dated 26.11.2012 upheld the Order of the Original Authority. Hence, this appeal. 3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Ld. Advocate Shri. M. Karthikeyan appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the period of dispute is from October 2009 to September 2010; that proceedings have been initiated for demanding the service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant, even during the proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals), had argued that the contracts were in the nature of 'Works Contract' involving sale of material and service. However, the lower appellate authority has reasoned that the appellants could not claim the service as being within the meaning of 'Works Contract Service'; that this cannot be interpreted altogether as a new entry; that it only provides a new method of determining the liability on such services at the option of the service provider; that as per the meaning of Section 65(105)(zzzh), the appellant's activities fall within the scope of "Construction of Residential Complex Service". 7. We find that the above conclusions of the lower appellate authority are in contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sen and Toubro Ltd. (supra). Thus, the said decision, though refers to the fact that Works Contract Service was introduced with effect from 01.06.2007, has not taken note of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to supra. Another case relied upon by the Ld. AR is the case of M/s. National Building Construction Corporation Ltd. (supra). The contention of the appellant before the Tribunal was that the construction activity carried out by them was in the nature of Works Contract and hence, not taxable prior to 01.06.2007. The same was not considered by the Tribunal relying upon the case of M/s. G.D. Builders (supra), which held that composite contracts are vivisectable. At the cost of repetition, it has to be stated that the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
