9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no longer res integra being decided in a catena of cases. In view of the judgment of 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 ]; this Tribunal in the case of H P Singh Chadha vs. CGST, Ludhiana [ 2024 (1) TMI 680 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH ] has taken a view that indivisible work contract cannot be classified under commercial or industrial construction services . The demands confirmed by the impugned orders cannot be sustained and is set aside - appeal allowed. - MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Present for the Appellant: Sh. Abhas Mishra, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Sh. Harish Kapoor, Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by them from the farmers. H relies on the following case-laws: Lanco Infratech Ltd vs. CCE ST, Hyderabad 2015 (38) STR 709 (Tri. LB) Punjab State Warehousing Corpn vs CCE, Chandigarh 2018 (15) GSTL 282 (Tri. Chan.) Vijay Sharma Co. vs. CCE, Chandigarh - 2010 (20) STR 309 (Tri. LB) BCC Developers Promoters Pvt Ltd vs. CCE, Jaipur 2017 (52) STR 22 (Tri. Delhi) G R Movers vs. CCE, Lucknow 2013 (30) STR 634 (Tri. Delhi) the Allahabad High Court as reported in 2015 (37) STR J132 (All.) Sanjeev K Gaddamwar vs. CCE, Nagpur 2017 (5) GSTL 206 (Tri. Mumbai) 3.2 The learned Counsel also submits that in all the works undertaken by the appellant, the material component is present and the same is not separately identified and is not vivisectable ; the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 95 (SC) Mehta Construction Co vs. CCE, Panchkula Final Order No. 60078/2024 dated 05.03.2024 CESTAT Chandigarh 4. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterates the findings of the impugned orders as far as the appellant s appeals are concerned. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the records of the case. 6. On going through the records, we find that the works executed by the appellant are in the nature of indivisible works contract; therefore, the demands if any should have been raised under works contract services and not under commercial or industrial construction services . 7. Further, we find that the issue is no longer res integra being decided in a catena of cases. In view of the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CCE, Keral ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
