9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice is simpliciter or in the nature of WCS, no Service Tax is leviable on them for the period prior to 01.07.2010. Therefore, the dropping of demand by the Adjudicating Authority for the period prior to 01.07.2010 is correct. For the period beyond 01.07.2010, their main argument is that since the Adjudicating Authority himself has confirmed the demand under different heading than what was proposed in the SCN, the demand itself is not tenable on this ground alone. While the appellant is mainly adducing that demand is not sustainable on the ground that Adjudicating Authority has not confirmed the demand under proposed classification and on this sole ground, the demand is liable to be set aside. It is found that in the facts of the case, it is not tenable as Commissioner has classified in the impugned order as CRCS, considering it as part of WCS and by holding that this is more specific and at no point of time he has held that there is no element of WCS in the said CRCS. In other words, he has not held, in the case of appellant, that it was CRCS simpliciter rather he has held that it is CRCS, which is very much in the nature of WCS. There is some merit in the departmental appeal as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Service Tax short paid amounting to Rs.3,25,17,745/- under the category of WCS for the period 01.06.2007 to 30.09.2011. 2. On adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority held the view at Para 21 that in view of the clarification by the CBEC vide Circular No. 151/2/2012-ST dt.10.02.2012, no Service Tax is leviable where Construction of Residential Complex Services (CRCS) were rendered prior to 01.07.2010 and that it would attract only post 01.07.2010 and confirmed the demand amounting to Rs.1,41,64,403/- for the said period. He has also held that the services rendered by the appellant during the period 01.07.2010 to 30.09.2011 are classifiable under the category of CRCS. 3. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that in this case, the SCN was issued under the category of WCS for the period 01.06.2007 to 30.09.2011 but the demand has been confirmed under CRCS for the period after 01.07.2010. Demand for the period before 01.07.2010 was dropped in view of the Board's circular. He also submits that in view of Circular No. 108/2/2009-ST dt.29.01.2009, if the ultimate owner enters into contract for construction of residential complex with a promoter/builder/developer, who himself p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicating Authority only clarifies that no Service Tax is applicable to CRCS up to 01.07.2010 but not to WCS and therefore, the service was not exempt. Therefore, the only ground is that in the facts of the case, the activities were in the nature of WCS and not CRCS and that the circular referred to is only applicable to CRCS and not to WCS and hence, Service Tax is payable. Since both issues are interrelated, we intend to take up both the appeals together for better appreciation of facts and dispose the appeals. 6. Learned AR for Revenue reiterates the grounds taken in the departmental appeal, insofar as the issue of classification under CRCS instead of WCS is concerned. On the issue of appellant's appeal against the confirmation of demand of Rs.1,83,53,342/-, he is reiterating his submission that since the classification adopted itself was wrong, as it should have been WCS in the facts of the case and therefore, once it is classified under WCS, the circular will not be applicable for the period prior to 01.07.2010. In other words, once it is held that the proper classification should have been WCS, then even for the period prior to 01.07.2010, the Service Tax would be payable as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other words, he has classified the activity under CRCS considering that it was very much part of WCS and it is not being denied nor held by the Commissioner that it is construction service simpliciter. Therefore, holding of service as CRCS in the facts of the case even for the period beyond 01.07.2010 does not suffer from any infirmity and for the period prior to 01.07.2010, it does not matter whether it is CRCS or WCS, as no Service Tax is leviable on any construction activity, as held in cited case laws. The appellants have not extended any specific ground as to why there is no leviability of Service Tax for the period beyond 01.07.2010. On going through the appeal memorandum, we find that they have mostly stated that for the Service Tax demand beyond 01.07.2010, in terms of explanation inserted in Section 65(105)(zzzh), there should be a finding that appellants have received some amount before the grant of completion certificate by the authority. They have also admitted that there was no construction agreement with the client. They have also taken a plea that if at all there is any levy of Service Tax, it would be only on the value of construction for the unfinished portion of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
