9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [ 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] , such composite contracts are liable to service tax only w.e.f. 01.06.2007, under the category of works contract services . Further, it is also noted that the original authority confirmed the service tax liability under residential complex service / works contract service on the ground that the appellants constructed residential units having common area and facility in the colony, in terms of agreement with Rajasthan Housing Board. This aspect is being contested by appellant. The factual details relevant to the present case has not been brought out with supporting evidence. Without inferring the fact regarding appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of equivalent amount under Section 78 and further penalty under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the impugned order appellant is in appeal. 2. With the above background, we have heard Ms. Rinki Arora, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Ranjan Khanna, DR for the respondent. 3. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 4. The demand against the appellant covers the period from 2005-06 to 2008-09. The original authority confirmed the demand of service tax under the construction of complex services for the entire period, which have been upheld in the impugned order. 5. We note that the contracts executed by the appellants in relation to construction of residential complex were subjected to service tax under constr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out with supporting evidence. Without inferring the fact regarding applicability of the tax entry in the present case, it is necessary to examine as to whether the residential complex, having individual houses, is in fact, having common areas as mentioned in the statutory definition. This can be verified from the approved layout and other supporting documents. In the absence of specific finding in this regard, it will not be correct to conclude on a particular tax entry. 6. In view of the above discussion and analysis, we find that the impugned order as it stands with reference to tax liability of the appellant for construction of residential complex, is not sustainable. Accordingly, that portion of the finding is set aside and the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
