9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 006 and 30/2012 for the reason that they have used materials for providing the construction services. In the case of Bhayana Builders [ 2018 (2) TMI 1325 - SUPREME COURT] , the Hon ble Apex Court held that even if free materials are provided, the abatement would be eligible. The Department has taken a view that the appellant has not furnished evidence to show that materials were used for providing construction service for which reason abatement has been denied. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellant would be able to furnish sufficient evidence to establish that the contracts are composite in nature and would not fall under the category of CICS. From the submissions made by both sides, it is opined that the matter requires to be remand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax on the consideration received by them for the various projects executed by them. Show cause notice dt. 19.04.2014 was issued to the appellant proposing to demand service tax under CICS for the period from 01.04.2012 to 30.06.2012 and also for the period from 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand of service tax, interest and imposed penalties. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2. The Ld. Counsel Shri S. Durairaj appeared and argued for the appellant. It is submitted that for the period from 01.04.2012 to 30.06.2012 the appellant was discharging the service tax under the category of CICS. Being composite contracts, the appellant had availed the benef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013 the appellant has discharged service tax under WCS. The works executed by the appellant are composite in nature as seen from the agreements entered with the customers. The appellant had furnished Profit Account statements and agreements to the Department. The P L statement would show the payment of VAT by appellant. These documents would show that appellant has not rendered pure service simplicitor contracts. The agreements entered into by the appellant with the customers were for entire project which is composite contracts involving supply of raw materials as well as rendition of services. The demand has been raised under CICS alleging that these are service simplicitor and not composite contracts. Appellant had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 (Appeal ST/41763/2015). 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 and Jain Housing Construction Ltd. Vs CST, Chennai as reported in (2023) 10 Centax 170 (Tri.-Mad.) which has been affirmed by the Hon ble Apex Court as reported in (2023) 10 Centax 171 (SC), it has been held that the demand raised under CICS/RCS/CCS cannot sustain for composite contracts. 6. The Ld. Counsel has requested a further chance to establish that they have rendered services to educational institutions and also to prove that the contracts executed by them are composite in nature. For these reasons, we find that the issue for the period prior to 30.06.2012 requires to be remande ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
