9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant as the Hon ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [ 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] has held that a composite contract is works contract service w.e.f. 01/06/2007 - also, there is no proposal by the Revenue to classify the said activity under Works Contract Service. Thus, prior to 01.06.2007, the activity is not taxable. Construction for Indian Navy, being flats construction for their personnel (MAP) - HELD THAT:- As such flats / apartments were not made for sale and construction is for one principal (the Ministry of Defence), the same is held to be not taxable in view of the law as clarified by the Board vide Instructions F.No.137/12/2006-CX.4 dt. 29/0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent : Shri Rama Holla, Superintendent(AR) ORDER PER : ANIL CHOUDHARY Heard the parties. The period of dispute is 01.01.2006 to 31.03.2008. 2. There are two issues involved in this appeal - firstly whether admittedly in case of composite contract wherein construction has been made by the appellant for Government organizations and others, Aggregating ₹ 2,07,63,462/-, the demand has been rightly raised under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service (CICS) for the period prior to 01.06.2007. 3. The other demand for ₹ 2,39,74,843/- under Construction of Complex Service, issue has been settled in favour of the appellant by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Larsen Toubro Ltd. [2015(39) S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion that the contractor/assessee has supplied all the material involved in the civil construction. Thus we hold that the appellant is not entitled for the 67% abatement under the said notification. However, we hold that appellant is entitled to deduction of material component actually used by them in construction of the projects - Seawood Apartment. Appellant have also submitted that they are registered under the provisions of State VAT and they have maintained proper accounts of the material used in the project. Accordingly, we are remanding this issue to the file of the original adjudicating authority to allow abatement or deduction of actual quantity/amount of material used in the construction, as per the records of the appellant. Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
