9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertaken by the appellant in the capacity of a developer was in the nature of works contract service . The issue has been laid to rest by various co-ordinate Benches of the CESTAT wherein the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [ 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] has been followed - the co-ordinate Hyderabad Bench, in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM - I VERSUS M/S PRAGATI EDIFICE PVT LTD (VICE-VERSA) [ 2019 (9) TMI 792 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] has held that After 1-7-2010, Service Tax is chargeable under the head of construction of complex services if it is service simpliciter and under works c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st and penalty. 2.2 The appellant appears to have filed a detailed reply defending its stand, but however, not satisfied with the same, the Adjudicating Authority, vide Order-in-Original No. 13/2013 dated 20.06.2013, has confirmed the demands proposed in the Show Case Notice. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed before this forum. 3. Heard Smt. Radhika Chandrasekhar, Learned Advocate for the appellant and Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Learned Superintendent for the respondent. After hearing both sides, we find that the only issue to be decided by us is: whether the Revenue is justified in demanding Service Tax from the appellant for the construction service provided by them for the period from April 2009 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indings of the lower authority. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and have perused the impugned Order-in-Original. 7. We find that, at paragraph 19 of the impugned order, the Learned Commissioner has observed, after scrutinizing the agreements, that (i) the appellants are the builders of the concerned flats; (ii) the appellants are only constructing the flats to the respective allottees, etc., which, per se, makes it clear that the activity undertaken by the appellant in the capacity of a developer was in the nature of works contract service . 8. We find that the above issue has been laid to rest by various co-ordinate Benches of the CESTAT wherein the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
