Page 89 - GSTL_30th April 2020_Vol 35_Part 5

2020 ]VOORA SHREERAM CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. v. COMMR. OF C. EX. & ST, CHENNAI575
REPRESENTED BY : Shri R. Ravikumar, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri A. Cletus, ADC (AR), for the Respondent.
[Order]. - M/s. Voora Shreeram Construction Pvt. Ltd., the appellants
herein are registered with the department for providing services under the cate-
gory of “Commercial or Industrial Construction Service” and “Construction of
Complex Service. On scrutiny of records, it emerged that appellant had not dis-
charged their Service Tax liability for the period from 4/2007 and have not add-
ed the monetary value of free materials supplied by their client in the gross
amount for the payment of Service Tax. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 7-4-
2010 was issued to them, inter alia, proposing demand of Service Tax of
Rs. 1,56,74,870/- with interest for the period 1-4-2005 to 31-8-2009, as also imposi-
tion of penalties under various provisions of law. In adjudication, after due pro-
cess of law, the adjudicating authority vide impugned order dated 16-10-2012
confirmed the Service Tax demand as proposed in the SCN with interest thereon
and imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. He also
imposed penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 77 ibid. Hence this present appeal.
2. Today when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appel-
lant, Ld. Advocate Shri R. Ravikumar, Advocate submits that issue as to whether
a composite contract involving provision of service as well as transfer of proper-
ty in goods could be covered under CICS and RCS from the date of introduction
of Service Tax levy on such services stands finally settled by the Hon’ble Su-
preme Court in the case of CCE & Cus., Kerala v. L. & T. Ltd. - [2015 (39) S.T.R. 913
(S.C.)]. Ld. Advocate submits that the very same issue is also squarely covered by
the recent decision of this Bench vide Final Order Nos. 42436-42438/2018, dated
18-9-2018 - [2018-TIOL-2867-CESTAT-MAD].
3. Heard Ld. AR Shri A. Cletus who supports the impugned order.
4. After hearing both sides, and on perusal of records, we find merit in
the Ld. Advocate is correct in his assertion that the issue in dispute is squarely
covered by the case laws cited by him, in particular, that of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra,) for the period up to 1-6-2007.
5. For the period after 1-6-2007, the Chennai Bench of the CESTAT in
the case of M/s. Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Commissioner of G.S.T &
Central Excise, Chennai & Ors. vide Final Order Nos. 42436-42438/2018, dated 18-
9-2018 have extrapolated the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s.
Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (supra) and held that even after 1-6-2007, Service Tax liabil-
ity for composite contracts can only be demanded under works contract service
and not under CICS, etc. For this reason, the impugned order demanding the
amount of tax liability under CICS for a composite contract will not survive and
will require to be set aside, which we hereby do.
6. The appeal is therefore allowed with consequential benefits, if any,
as per law.
(Operative part of the order pronounced in Court)

_______

GST LAW TIMES  30th April 2020  89