9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , contractors, et cetera, for the purposes of construction, so as to develop the property into one or more residential / multistoried buildings. It is further clear that in terms of the construction agreement, it was for the developer to construct the complex using its own men material. In respect of Wanlock Woods project, the appellant is fastened with a liability on the ground of not recognising the said construction as under CRCS, but as individual units. This very issue has been considered by the coordinate Bench, in the case of COMMISSIONER VERSUS MACRO MARVEL PROJECTS LTD. [ 2009 (7) TMI 1222 - SC ORDER] as contended by the learned Advocate, which has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the above position o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, it is their case that their activity could not be classified under Construction of Residential Complex Service ( CRCS for short) as characterized by the department for the levy of service tax. 2. During the year in respect of the project by name Wenlock Woods, the original authority had held that the construction of 12 individual residential units having common facilities, common compound and common gateway attracted service tax under CRCS. It is the case of the assessee, that the above service provided by them, was under Works Contract Service and therefore, demand raised under CRCS was not sustainable, and for this, they have relied on an order of Tribunal in the case of Macro Marble Projects Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is contended that they had paid service tax under composition scheme on the advance payment received towards contract service along with interest. However, the adjudicating authority has held that they were not entitled to avail composition scheme for work contract since they had availed CENVAT credit on inputs/input services. This demand has also been raised contrary to the reasons proposed in the Show Cause Notice which was different and hence, same is not sustainable in law. 6. In the respect of another project by name Saffron Summers, it is submitted that the demand of service tax was proposed under CRCS in the Show Cause Notice and confirmed under the same head in the impugned order. It is their case that as part of the project, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the above position of law, the demand under CRCS as proposed is not sustainable and accordingly, this ground of the appeal succeeds. 10. We have carefully considered the show cause notice, proposals therein, and the confirmation of the demand in the Order in Original and it is clear that the proposal was only under CRCS. Here also, there is no dispute that there was supply of materials as well as the service of construction and hence, the same could only be taxed under WCS. However, the proposal in the show cause notice is clearly under CRCS as observed by us in the earlier para and hence, confirmation of the demand under WCS is not in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
