9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... activity, as a builder, involved both service of construction as well as supply of materials; that being sale, applicable VAT stood remitted. So, the said activity clearly involved a composite contract hence, the service was covered under WCS. Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S LARSEN TOUBRO LTD. AND OTHERS [ 2015 (8) TMI 749 - SUPREME COURT] has clearly held that composite contracts where transfer of property in goods is involved shall be classifiable only under Works Contract Service and not under CCS/CICS. Conclusion - The appellant's services were classifiable under WCS, but the demand for differential tax should only apply to the normal period. The penalty under Section 78 was set aside. Appeal allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence, the projects for which construction was undertaken by the service provider satisfied the condition (i) under the definition of WCS, which appeared to be more specific classification than Construction of Complex Service (CCS). In the above background, the revenue had entertained a doubt that the classification adopted by the service provider under CCS was wrong and the services in question were required to be re-classified and re-assessed to Service Tax under WCS in terms of Section 65/105(zzzza) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, a SCN dated 03.03.2014 proposing as above and thereby demanding the differential tax apart from appropriate interest and various penalties and also extending the larger period of limitation, came to be is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fying their service under WCS. Even though their earlier returns under CCS was accepted by the revenue. In any case, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Larsen Toubro Ltd. is clear that the scope of CCS would cover the Service contract simpliciter and not the cases where composite contract is involved. In view of the above, it was contended that the classification made by the Revenue and the consequential demand of differential duty along with interest penalties are not in accordance with law. 8. Per contra, Smt. O.M. Reena, Ld. Addl. Commissioner relied on the findings in the impugned order. 9. From the documents placed on record, there is a finding that insofar as the construction of projects was concerned, the Appellant had got ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
