Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
K J Developers vs Cst Ch on 22 August, 2025
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT No. I
Service Tax Appeal No. 40211 of 2016
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 212/2015(STA-II) dated 25.08.2015 passed by
Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-II), No. 26/1, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600 034)
M/s. K.J. Developers ...Appellant
No. 11, Somasundaram Street,
T. Nagar,
Chennai - 600 017.
Versus
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise ...Respondent
Chennai North Commissionerate, Newry Towers, No. 2054-I, 2nd Avenue, 12th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040.
APPEARANCE:
For the Appellant : Ms. Radhika Chandrasekhar, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Rajini Menon, Authorised Representative CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON'BLE MR. AJAYAN T.V., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) FINAL ORDER No. 40848 / 2025 DATE OF HEARING : 28.05.2025 DATE OF DECISION : 22.08.2025 Per Mr. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO M/s. K.J. Developers, T. Nagar, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellant') are engaged in the business of Construction of Residential complex and are Registered with the Department bearing Reg. No. AAHFK4351MSST001. During the verification of ST-3 returns 2 ST/40211/2016 filed on 19.09.2009 for the period from October 2008 to March 2009 and subsequent returns filed for the period from April 2009 to September 2009 it was noticed that the Appellant had not discharged the service tax liability on the residential complex constructed by them. It appears that the Appellant had provided the services under the category of construction of residential complex services (CRCS for short) as defined u/s. 65(91a) of the Finance Act, 1994 but did not pay the service tax for the disputed period from 10/2008 to June/2010. Based on the same, a Show Cause Notice No 480/2010 dated 09.09.2010 came to be issued proposing to recover the service tax for the services of "construction of Residential complex service" along with applicable interest and penalty.
2. The Appellant upon receipt of the SCN, filed a reply assailing it on the grounds of merits and well as on limitation during adjudication and thereafter, Order-in- Original No. 01/2012 S.Tax /Ch-IV dated 10.01.2012 was issued by the Additional Commissioner confirming the demand of Service Tax of Rs.6,13,867/- under the category of construction of residential complex service along with interest and imposed penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3
ST/40211/2016
3. Aggrieved with the above order, the Appellant approached the first appellate authority, and the Commissioner (Appeals II), Chennai vide his order No 212/2015 (STA-II) dated 25.08.2015 upheld the demand of Service Tax along with interest but dropped the penalty imposed under Section 76 of FA 1994 as there was no intention to evade tax and as the issue was being contested in various forums.
4. Once again being aggrieved by this order, the present appeal has been filed before this forum.
5. Heard Ms. Radhika Chandrasekar Ld. Advocate for the Appellant and Shri Harendra Singh Pal Ld. AR for the Department.
6. The Ld. Advocate would submit that: -
6.1 The activity of the Appellant merits classification under the category 'works contract service'. The Appellant is in the business of executing works contract. Works contracts are contracts, which involve both material and services and are indivisible contracts in contrast to pure contract of supply of materials.4
ST/40211/2016 6.2 The Department has granted abatement of 67% while arriving at the service tax liability which itself indicates that the contract is a composite contract which involves material as well as labour portion. Therefore, the confirmation of demand under Construction of Residential Complex services is not in order.
6.3 The Appellant relied upon the decision of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Real Value Promoters Pvt Ltd Final Order 42436-42438/ 2018 dated 18.09.2018, wherein it has held that works contract cannot be taxed prior to 01.06.2007 and in respect of any contract which is a composite contract service tax cannot be demanded under CICS/CCS for the period after 01.06.2007, The same view has been taken in the case of URC Construction Ltd. (Final Order 42037-42038/2016 dated 14.07.2016). 6.4 The Tribunal in the case of Jain Housing and Construction Ltd Vs. CST vide Final Order Nos. 40077- 40079/2023 has held that works contract service cannot be classified under construction of residential complex services for the period post 01.06.2007. In the said decision the Tribunal had relied upon the decision in the case of Real Value Promoters. The department had filed a Civil Appeal against the said decision of the Tribunal. The Hon'ble 5 ST/40211/2016 Supreme Court vide order dated 05.09.2023 has affirmed the decision of the tribunal reported in Commissioner of Service Tax Vs Jain Housing and Construction Ltd. (2023) 10 Centax 171 (S.C.). The said decision is squarely applicable to the instant case and the Order in Original is liable to be set aside.
6.5 The Appellant also relied upon the decisions in the case of BBC City Park Vs. Commissioner of GST & CE vide Final Order No. ST/W40834/2024 dated 10.07.2024 & Srinivasa Shipping & Property Developers Vs. Commissioner of GST & CE vide Final Order No. 41107-08/2023 dated 08.12.2023 wherein this Tribunal has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jain Housing and Construction Ltd. and set aside the orders on the ground of mis- classification.
6.6 The Finance Act, 2010 has for the first time brought developers into the ambit of service w.e.f. 01.07.2010 through the introduction of Explanation to 65(105)(zzzh) and hence there is no question of service tax on developers prior to 01.07.2010. The explanation clearly states that "a builder or any person authorized by the builder shall be deemed to be service provider by the builder to the 6 ST/40211/2016 buyer". Therefore, there is no liability to pay service tax prior to 01.07.2010 as a developer.
6.7 The Tribunal in the case of Krishna Homes vs CC [2014 (34) STR 881] has held (Para 9) that during the period of dispute there was no intention of the Government to tax the activity in terms of agreements between the builder/developer and the prospective customers for the construction of residential units against payments made in instalments, in terms of which possession of the residential unit is to be handed over to the customer on completion of residential complex and on full payment. The Tribunal further observed that works contracts involving transfer of immovable property were brought within the purview of the taxable service by adding Explanation to Section 65(105)(zzzh) with effect from 01.07.2010 and therefore it has to be held that such contracts were not covered by Section 65(105)(zzzh) during the period prior to 01.07.2010. The same view is taken in the case of Pragati Edifice Pvt Ltd. Vs Commissioner of CCE & ST -- Final Order No. 31010- 31011/2019. The Appellant also placed reliance on the following decision wherein it has been held that prior to 01.07.2010 developer is not liable to pay Service tax in view of the amendment to section 65(105))(zzzh) Casa Grande -- Final Order No 40255/2023 7 ST/40211/2016 Jain Housing and Construction Ltd Vs CST vide Final Order Nos. 40077-40079/2023 6.8 The SCN is time barred as none of the ingredients like Fraud, Collusion, Wilful misstatement, Suppression of facts, with intent to evade payment of service tax is present in this case. The question involved is interpretation and liability of the developer for the period prior to 01.07.2010.
7. Per contra, Shri Harendra Singh Pal, Ld. Asst. Commissioner appearing for the respondent-Revenue relied upon the findings in the impugned order.
8. After hearing both sides, we find the issues that arise for decision in this appeal are: -
i. "Whether the Revenue is justified in fastening the service tax liability on the appellant under CRCS"?
ii. Whether the demand is hit by limitation of time We now take up the questions framed by us in seriatim:
9.1 To answer the first question, we need a better understanding of the issue, the applicable statutory provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, during the relevant period, are abstracted as under: -
8
ST/40211/2016 "65(91a): "residential complex" means any complex comprising of--
(i) a building or buildings, having more than twelve residential units;
(ii) a common area; and
(iii) any one or more of facilities or services such as park, lift, parking space, community hall, common water supply or effluent treatment system, located within a premises and the layout of such premises is approved by an authority under any law for the time being in force, but does not include a complex which is constructed by a person directly engaging any other person for designing or planning of the layout, and the construction of such complex is intended for personal use as residence by such person.
Explanation. -- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this clause, --
(a) "personal use" includes permitting the complex for use as residence by another person on rent or without consideration;
(b) "residential unit" means a single house or a single apartment intended for use as a place of residence; 65(30a) "construction of complex" means --
(a) construction of a new residential complex or a part thereof; or
(b) completion and finishing services in relation to residential complex such as glazing, plastering, painting, floor and wall tiling, wall covering and wall papering, wood and metal joinery and carpentry, fencing and railing, construction of swimming pools, acoustic applications or fittings and other similar services; or
(c) repair, alteration, renovation or restoration of, or similar services in relation to, residential complex;
65(105) (zzzh): "taxable service" means any service provided or to be provided to any person, by any other person, in relation to construction of complex Explanation (Inserted w.e.f. 01.07.2010 by s. 76 of the Finance Act, 2010 (14 of 2010))- For the purposes of this sub- 9
ST/40211/2016 clause, construction of a complex which is intended for sale, wholly or partly, by a builder or any person authorised by the builder before, during or after construction (except in cases for which no sum is received from or on behalf of the prospective buyer by the builder or a person authorised by the builder before the grant of completion certificate by the authority competent to issue such certificate under any law for the time being in force) shall be deemed to be service provided by the builder to the buyer.
The definition of 'Works Contract Service' is as follows:
(zzzza) to any person, by any other person in relation to the execution of a works contract, excluding works contract in respect of roads, airports, railways, transport terminals, bridges, tunnels and dams.
Explanation: For the purposes of this sub-clause, "works contract" means a contract wherein,
(i) Transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of such contract is leviable to tax as sale of goods, and
(ii) Such contract is for the purposes of carrying out, -
(a) Erection, commissioning or installation of plant, machinery, equipment or structures, whether pre-fabricated or otherwise, installation of electrical and electronic devices, plumbing, drain laying or other installations for transport of fluids, heating, ventilation or air-conditioning including related pipe work, duct work and sheet metal work, thermal insulation, sound insulation, fire proofing or water proofing, lift and escalator, fire escape staircases or elevators; or
(b) Construction of a new building or a civil structure or a part thereof, or of a pipeline or conduit, primarily for the purposes of commerce or industry; or
(c) Construction of a new residential complex or a part thereof; or 10 ST/40211/2016
(d) Completion and finishing services, repair, alteration, renovation or restoration of, or similar services, in relation to
(b) and (c); or
(e) Turnkey projects including engineering, procurement and construction or commissioning (EPC) projects;"
9.2 We find that the definition of residential complex as per Section 65(91a) of Finance Act 1994 is applicable for both the entries under Section 65(105)(zzzh) for levy of tax on construction of residential complex as also for entry under Section 65(105)(zzzza) for works contract. Therefore, there cannot be an argument that the expression residential complex has to be interpreted in one manner for works contract and in a different manner for levy of tax on construction of a residential complex.
9.3 The appellant contended that the ownership of the land has been transferred and construction service continued thereafter to each land owner vide separate construction agreement and the same was considered by the CBEC Circular No. 108/02/2009-ST dated 29.01.2009 wherein it was clarified that any service provided by a seller in connection with the construction of residential complex till the execution of such sale deed would be in the nature of self service and consequently would not attract service tax. The appellant further contended that an Explanation was inserted 11 ST/40211/2016 with effect from 01.07.2010 to the definition of Construction of residential/commercial complex and the same would apply only prospectively.
9.4 We have perused the OIO and OIA, and find that there is no discussion that the services provided by the Appellant will be under WCS, but straightaway came to the conclusion based on the definitions and construction model of the Appellant that the services provided by them fall under CRC Services. The construction agreement which a main document for clinching the issue has not been abstracted anywhere or the contents of the same were not discussed in the orders. We also find that that the Appellant though did not claim that their services were under WCS at the OIO/OIA stage, but now has now come up with a plea that "The activity of the Appellant merits classification under the category 'works contract service' and the Appellant is in the business of executing works contract. Works contract are basically contracts, which involve both material and services and are indivisible contracts in contrast to pure contract of supply of materials. Section 65(105)(zzzza) deals with service tax on works contracts and the said provision has come into force w.e.f 01.06.2007.
That in the Show Cause Notice, the Department has allowed abatement under Notification No. 1/2006 which would establish that all the works executed are composite in nature. The decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Jain Housing & Construction Ltd. (supra) will then squarely apply. The said decision has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex 12 ST/40211/2016 Court by dismissing the Department appeal as reported in [2023 10 Centax 171 (SC)]."
9.5 We have gone through the Notification No. 1/2006 ST (governing abatements) and under Column 10 of the Table which covers Section 65(105) (zzzh) against which the explanation is abstracted as follows: -
"Explanation - The gross amount charged shall include the value of goods and materials supplied or provided or used for providing the taxable service by the service provider."
From the above reasoning and explanation, it becomes clear that the nature of services provided by the Appellant are in the nature of works contract.
9.6 We note that though the definition of WCS incorporates the definitions of CCS into it, the scope of coverage of these services is distinct. While the definition of CCS would cover such construction activities without involving any transfer of property in goods (Example: -
Where all materials required for the construction are supplied by the service recipient and the service provider is engaged only for provision of construction service) such a construction is service simplicitor and whereas a composite construction activity would fall only under WCS.13
ST/40211/2016 9.7 We find that the issue of taxability either under CCS or WCS has been laid to rest by a catena of orders of various Benches of the CESTAT, wherein the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Kerala v. M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2015 (39) S.T.R. 913 (S.C.)] has been followed, to hold that Service Tax would be chargeable only after 01.07.2010 in respect of developers under the head CCS if service simpliciter is involved and under the head WCS if it is a composite works contract.
9.8 The Appellant has submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Jain Housing Vs. CST in CMA No. 3289 of 2013 and 1419 to 1421 of 2014 though it was against the pre-deposit order of the Tribunal has observed as follows at para 20: -
"20, Consequent to the sale of the undivided share, the ultimate owner, namely the prospective buyer, comes into play and as per the second portion of paragraph (3) of the circular dated 29.01.2009, if the ultimate residential complex with a promoter, builder. or developer, who himself provides service of design, planning and construction, and after such construction the ultimate owner receives such property for his person use, then such activity would not be subjected to service tax, because, according to the circular, it would fall under the exclusion provided in the definition of "residential complex" under Section 65(91) (a) of the Finance Act, 1994."14
ST/40211/2016 We have perused the above decision and the same is squarely applicable to the case on hand. 9.9 We have perused the CBEC Circular No. 108/02/2009 - ST dated 29.1.2009 Imposition of service tax on Builders cited by the Ld. Counsel, wherein the contents are as follows:
"1. Construction of residential complex was brought under service tax w.e.f. 01.06.2005.
2. A view has been expressed that once an agreement of sale is entered into with the buyer for a unit in a residential complex, he becomes the owner of the residential unit and subsequent activity of a builder for construction of residential unit is a service of 'construction of residential complex' to the customer and hence service tax would be applicable to it. A contrary view has been expressed arguing that where a buyer makes construction linked payment after entering into agreement to sell, the nature of transaction is not a service but that of a sale. Where a buyer enters into an agreement to get a fully constructed residential unit, the transaction of sale is completed only after complete construction of the residential unit. Till the completion of the construction activity, the property belongs to the builder or promoter and any service provided by him towards construction is in the nature of self service. It has also been argued that even if it is taken that service is provided to the customer, a single residential unit bought by the individual customer would not fall in the definition of 'residential complex' as defined for the purposes of levy of service tax and hence construction of it would not attract service tax.15
ST/40211/2016
3. The matter has been examined by the Board. Generally, the initial agreement between the promoters / builders / developers and the ultimate owner is in the nature of 'agreement to sell'. Such a case, as per the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, does not by itself create any interest in or charge on such property. The property remains under the ownership of the seller (in the instant case, the promoters/ builders/developers). It is only after the completion of the construction and full payment of the agreed sum that a sale deed is executed and only then the ownership of the property gets transferred to the ultimate owner. Therefore, any service provided by such seller in connection with the construction of residential complex till the execution of such sale deed would be in the nature of 'self-service' and consequently would not attract service tax. Further, if the ultimate owner enters into a contract for construction of a residential complex with a promoter / builder / developer, who himself provides service of design, planning and construction; and after such construction the ultimate owner receives such property for his personal use, then such activity would not be subjected to service tax, because this case would fall under the exclusion provided in the definition of 'residential complex'. However, in both these situations, if services of any person like contractor, designer or a similar service provider are received, then such a person would be liable to pay service tax."
From the construction model adopted by the builder/promoter as seen from the Appeal records, we find that the developer/builder is not liable to pay the Tax. 9.10 It is well settled legal position that whether the service is rendered as service simpliciter or as a works 16 ST/40211/2016 contract, no Service Tax can be levied on construction of residential complex prior to 01.07.2010. 9.11 The issue as to whether a composite contract involving provision of service as well as transfer of property in goods could be covered under CCS from the date of introduction of service tax levy on such services was being litigated upon, which was finally settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2015 (39) STR 913 SC]. The Apex Court has observed that in as much as section 67 of the Act, dealing with valuation of taxable services, refers to the gross amount charged for service, the services of CCS would cover only pure service activities, as any contrary view would imply that the Union Government can levy service tax on the gross amount, including the value of transfer of property in goods also, which is constitutionally impermissible. The exemption notifications issued at the discretion of the executive are not sufficient to sustain the levy. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed that only with the introduction of WCS as a separate taxable service, statutory mechanism to exclude the value of transfer of property in goods has been prescribed.
The effect of the above decision is that CICS and CCS, as defined under clauses (zzq) and (zzzh), respectively, of sub 17 ST/40211/2016 section (105) of the section 65 would cover only pure service contracts, without any transfer of property in goods. 9.12 We observe that the Show Cause Notice issued demanding service tax under CCS, on composite contracts, involving transfer of property in goods, for the period post 01.06.2007 cannot be sustained, as these services would cover only pure service activities, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Larsen & Toubro (supra). At the stage of adjudication or appeal proceedings, the demand cannot be confirmed under WCS, when the show cause notice raises demand on CCS. Such an attempt would amount to travelling beyond the scope of the show cause notice, which is not permissible.
Though the definition of WCS incorporates the definitions of CCS into it, the scope of coverage of these services are distinct. While the definition of CCS would cover such construction activities without involving any transfer of property in goods (Example: - Where all materials required for the construction are supplied by the service recipient and the service provider is engaged only for provision of construction service), a composite construction activity would fall only under WCS.
As contended by the Ld. Advocate, we agree that the service rendered by the Appellant is in the nature of WCS 18 ST/40211/2016
10. The Learned Advocate for the appellant has referred to the findings of the coordinate Hyderabad Bench of the CESTAT in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Visakhapatnam-I v. M/s. Pragati Edifice Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (31) G.S.T.L. 241 (Tri. - Hyderabad)], wherein it has been held as under: -
"(n) To sum up, as far as construction of 'residential complexes' by the builders are concerned:
(i) Prior to 1-6-2007, if it is a composite works contract, no Service Tax is leviable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Larsen & Toubro (supra).
(ii) After 1-6-2007, it is chargeable as 'works contract' only if it is a composite contract and under 'construction of complex services' if it is a service simpliciter.
(iii) However, after 1-6-2007 but prior to 1-7-2010, whether it is a service simpliciter or a works contract, if the service is rendered prior to issue of completion certificate and transfer to the customer, it is not taxable being in the nature of self service.
(iv) Further, whenever the service is rendered for completion or construction of a flat for personal use of the service recipient, no Service Tax is payable in view of the exclusion in the definition of residential complex service.
(v) After 1-7-2010, Service Tax is chargeable under the head of 'construction of complex services' if it is service simpliciter and under 'works contract service' if it is a composite works contract.
(o) In view of the above, it is well settled legal position that whether the service is rendered as service simpliciter or as a works contract, no Service Tax can be 19 ST/40211/2016 levied on construction of residential complex prior to 1-7-
2010. Learned Counsel would submit that for the period post 1-7-2010, they have been discharging Service Tax appropriately. This is a fact which can be verified to ascertain the full tax liability for the period post 1-7-2010 or otherwise."
11. We have gone through the orders of the various CESTAT Benches which have been considered by the Hyderabad Bench of the CESTAT in M/s. Pragati Edifice Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the relevant observation of which has been extracted hereinabove. We find that it has been categorically held that no Service Tax could be levied on construction of residential complexes prior to 01.07.2010 even when the service is rendered either as service simpliciter or as a works contract. Admittedly, the period of dispute, as noted by us in the first paragraph, is from October 2008 to June 2010 and hence, the above ruling is squarely applicable to the present case.
12. In the case of Real Value Promoters Pvt. Ltd. and Others [2018 (9) TMI 1149-CESTAT, Chennai], the question which arose was whether a demand can be made on 'commercial and industrial construction service' under Section 65(105)(zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994 after 1-6- 2007 where the nature of contract is a composite contract 20 ST/40211/2016 involving both supply of materials and rendition of services. It has been held that "For the period post 1-6-2007, Service Tax liability under the category of 'commercial or industrial construction service' under Section 65(105)(zzzh), 'Construction of complex service' under Section 65(105(zzzq) will continue to be attracted only if the activities are in the nature of services simpliciter.
(i) Thus, if the services rendered are in the nature of composite works contracts, they cannot be charged to Service Tax prior to 1-6-2007 and can be charged post this date only under this head 65(105)(zzzza) and not under any other head.
(j) In the case of M/s. Krishna Homes v. CCE, Bhopal and CCE, Bhopal v. M/s. Raj Homes as reported in 2014 (3) TMI 694-CESTAT, Ahmedabad, the scope of taxing 'Composite Works Contracts' rendered in connection with construction of complex services prior to 1-7-2010 was examined. 'Construction of complex services' was covered in Section 65(105)(zzzh) and in this clause an explanation was added w.e.f. 1-7-2010. This reads as follows:
(zzzh) to any person, by any other person, in relation to construction of complex;
"Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-clause, the construction of a new building which is intended for sale, wholly or partly, by a builder or any person authorized by the builder before, during or after construction (except in cases for which no sum is received from or on behalf of the prospective buyer by the builder or the person authorized by the builder before grant of completion certificate by the authority competent to issue such certificate under any law for the time being in force) shall be deemed to be service provided by the builder to the buyer."
(k) The definition of 'Works Contract Service' is as follows:
21
ST/40211/2016 (zzzza) to any person, by any other person in relation to the execution of a works contract, excluding works contract in respect of roads, airports, railways, transport terminals, bridges, tunnels and dams.
Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-clause, "works contract" means a contract wherein,
(i) Transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of such contract is leviable to tax as sale of goods, and
(ii) Such contract is for the purposes of carrying out, - ......................."
13. We are consciously refraining from burdening this order by reproducing from the wealth of decisions of Tribunal and higher judicial fora as available in this regard to avoid prolixity. It is suffice to note that similar view has been taken earlier by this Tribunal in more or less similar facts and circumstances, as can be seen from the decisions in Commissioner of Service Tax vs. Jain Housing and Construction Ltd. [2023 (10) Centax 171 (S.C)], Real Value Promoters Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST vide Final Order No. 42436-42438/2018 dated 18.09.2018, BBC City Park vs. Commissioner of GST & CE vide Final Order No.ST/A/40834/2024 dated 10.07.2024, Pragati Edifice Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CCE & ST Final Order No.3101031011/19 dated 18.09.2019 and Krishna Homes vs. CCE [2014 (34) STR 881] to cite a few which have been relied upon by the Appellant. The ratio of these decisions is applicable to facts of this appeal.
22
ST/40211/2016
14. In the light of the ratio of the aforesaid binding decisions of the Apex Court and coordinate benches of the Tribunal, we hold that the services provided by the appellant in respect of the projects executed by them for the relevant period, being in the nature of composite works contract cannot be brought within the fold of "construction of complex" service and thus the impugned OIA upholding the impugned OIO confirming the demand along with applicable interest cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside on merits. Based on the above findings, the services rendered by the Appellant are in the nature of works contract not liable to Tax prior to 1.7.2010 and therefore, the Impugned order fails to survive on merits and the demand is liable to be set aside which we do so. As a result, we find that there is no necessity to discuss the issue of limitation.
15. In sum, the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 212/2015(STA-II) dated 25.08.2015 is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential benefits if any, as per the law.
(Order pronounced in open court on 22.08.2025) Sd/- Sd/-
(AJAYAN T.V.) (VASA SESHAGIRI RAO) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MK