9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 996X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e made under the category of WCS. The Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. [ 2018 (9) TMI 1149 - CESTAT CHENNAI] had considered the issue as to whether the demand made under CICS / RCS / CCS can sustain for the period prior to 1.7.2012 for composite contracts. The said decision was followed by the Tribunal in the case of Jain Housing Construction Ltd. [ 2023 (2) TMI 1044 - CESTAT CHENNAI] whereby the Tribunal set aside the demand following the decision in the case of Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. The demand cannot sustain. In the result, the impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed. - HON BLE MS. SULEKHA BEEVI. C. S. , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Ms. G. Varshitha , A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear from the fact that the Department has granted 67% abatement while quantifying the tax payable by the appellant in the SCN. In the case of contracts which are indivisible and composite in nature, the demand can only be made under WCS as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Cus. Kerala Vs Larsen Toubro Ltd. 2015 (39) S.T.R. 913 (SC). The Tribunal followed the said decision in the case of Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs CGST Central Excise, Chennai vide Final Order No.42436-42438/2018 dated 18.09.2018 by which it was held that the demand under Commercial or Industrial Construction Service / Construction of Complex Service / Construction of Residential Complex Services cannot sustain prior to the period 1.7.2012 in case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ltd. (supra) had considered the issue as to whether the demand made under CICS / RCS / CCS can sustain for the period prior to 1.7.2012 for composite contracts. The said decision was followed by the Tribunal in the case of Jain Housing Construction Ltd. (supra) whereby the Tribunal set aside the demand following the decision in the case of Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The decision of the Tribunal was maintained by the Hon ble Apex Court by dismissing the appeal filed by the Department as reported in (2023) 10 Centax 171 (SC). 6. The Tribunal has taken similar view in the case of Sri Rosh Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE ST vide Final Order No.40217/2014 dated 01.03.2024. 7. Following these decisions, we are of the considered opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
