Chaitanya Shantiniketan vs CST Ch - II

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT No. III

(1) Service Tax Appeal Nos. 40868 of 2017
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.CHN-SVTAX-003-COM- 40 to 42
2016-17 dated 11.01.2017 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax-III
Commissionerate, Newry Towers, No.2054-I, II, Avenue, Anna Nagar,
Chennai-600 040.)
M/s. Chaitanya Shantiniketan ….Appellant
No. 1, Shantiniketan Premises,
City Link Road,
Adambakkam, ST. Thomas Mount,
Chennai - 600 088.


VERSUS
The Commissioner of GST &
Central Excise ….Respondent
Chennai Outer Commissionerate
Newry Towers, No.2054, I Block,
th
II Avenue, 12 Main Road, Anna Nagar,
Chennai - 600 040.

WITH
(2) Service Tax Appeal Nos. 40869 of 2017
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.CHN-SVTAX-003-COM- 40 to 42
2016-17 dated 11.01.2017 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax-III
Commissionerate, Newry Towers, No.2054-I, II, Avenue, Anna Nagar,
Chennai-600 040.)
M/s. Chaitanya Shantiniketan ….Appellant
No. 1, Shantiniketan Premises,
City Link Road,
Adambakkam, ST. Thomas Mount,
Chennai - 600 088.


VERSUS
The Commissioner of GST &
Central Excise ….Respondent
Chennai Outer Commissionerate
Newry Towers, No.2054, I Block,
th
II Avenue, 12 Main Road, Anna Nagar,
Chennai - 600 040.

2






AND
(3) Service Tax Appeal Nos. 40870 of 2017
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.CHN-SVTAX-003-COM- 40 to 42
2016-17 dated 11.01.2017 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax-III
Commissionerate, Newry Towers, No.2054-I, II, Avenue, Anna Nagar,
Chennai-600 040.)
M/s. Chaitanya Shantiniketan ….Appellant
No. 1, Shantiniketan Premises,
City Link Road,
Adambakkam, ST. Thomas Mount,
Chennai - 600 088.


VERSUS

The Commissioner of GST &
Central Excise ….Respondent
Chennai Outer Commissionerate
Newry Towers, No.2054, I Block,
th
II Avenue, 12 Main Road, Anna Nagar,
Chennai - 600 040.



APPEARANCE:
Smt. Radhika Chandrasekar, Advocate for the Appellant
Smt. K. Vijaya Sree, Authorized Representative
for the Respondent

CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON’BLE MR. M. AJIT KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER Nos.41150-41152/2026

DATE OF HEARING: 18.08.2026
DATE OF DECISION:30.10.2026

3







Per: Shri P. Dinesha

M/s. Chaitanya Shantiniketan, who is the Appellant
in this case, has filed this Appeal against the impugned
Order-in-Original Nos.CHN-SVTAX-003-COM-40 to
42/2016-17 dated 11.01.2017, whereby the
Commissioner has confirmed various demands of service
tax on construction of residential complex.

2. Brief facts as could be gathered from the impugned
order are that based on intelligence inputs that the
Appellant did not pay appropriate Service Tax on
construction services, an investigation was taken up by
the Service Tax Commissionerate following which a Show
Cause Notice (No.512/2011 dated 18.10.2011) was
issued proposing to levy Service Tax under the
‘Construction of Residential Complex Service’ (CRCS)
despite the fact that the Appellant, with effect from
01.07.2007, had opted for and started paying Service Tax
under Works Contract Composition Scheme for the said
project. The Appellant appears to have filed its reply
justifying its stand, but however, the Adjudicating

4





Authority vide Order-in-Original No.1/2013 dated
29.01.2013 confirmed the demand proposed therein,
against which, it appears that the Appellant preferred an
Appeal before CESTAT Chennai Bench and this Bench,
vide its Final Order No.42779/2018 dated 31.10.2018 in
Appeal No.ST/41671/2013 [2019 (2) TMI 141-CESTAT
Chennai], set aside the demand of Service Tax following
the decision of Apex Court in the case of CCE & Cus.,
Kerala Vs Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2015 (39) STR 913
(SC)].

3. In the meanwhile, on the very same grounds the
Revenue issued following SODs/SCN to the Appellant:
S.No. Period
involved
SOD/SCN Service Tax
Payable
1. April 2011 to
March 2012
SOD No.
178/2013 dated
23.05.2013
Rs.73,92,738/-
along with
interest and
penalty
2. April 2012 to
June 2012
SOD No.
139/2014 dated
20.05.2014
Rs.14,10,034/-
along with
interest and
penalty
3. July 2012 to
March 2014
SCN No.
24/2014 dated
18.07.2014
Rs.94,918/-
along with
interest and
penalty

5





In reply to the above SODs/SCN, it appears that the
Appellant filed its reply primarily challenging that the
above SODs/SCN have been issued by invoking the
extended period of limitation by referring the early SCN
No.512/2011 and hence, the invocation of extended
period of limitation was unjustified, they also placed
reliance on:
(i) Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. Collector of
Central Excise [2006 (197) ELT 465(SC)].

(ii) ECE Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE [2004 (164)
ELT 236]

and many other decisions.


4. The Original Authority, however, vide impugned order
confirmed the demand which has given rise to the present
Appeal.

5. Heard Smt. Radhika Chandrasekar, Ld. Advocate for
the Appellant and Smt. K. Vijaya Sree, Ld. Departmental
Representative defended the impugned order. Having
heard the rival contentions and after perusing the
documents and judicial pronouncements relied upon
during the course of the hearing, we find that the
following issues are to be decided by us:

6





(i) Whether the Revenue was justified in invoking the
extended period of limitation?
(ii) Whether the demand under ‘CRCS’ confirmed in
the impugned order is sustainable in law?

6. Smt. Radhika Chandrasekar, Ld. Advocate, submitted
at the outset, that the impugned demands raised in
SODs/SCN which came to be confirmed in the impugned
order are not sustainable since the first SCN No.512 dt.
18.10.2011 which had resulted in confirming the demand
has been set aside by this very Bench vide Final Order
No.42779/2018 dated 31.10.2018 (supra) and hence, the
present SODs/SCN which have been issued on the basis
of SCN No.512 dated 18.10.2011 cannot stand
independently. She would thus contend that the Revenue
having not brought out on record any fresh material facts
to establish suppression, fraud, misrepresentation etc.,
has seriously flawed in mechanically invoking the
extended period of limitation. In this regard, she would
invite her attention to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Nizam Sugar Factory ( supra ).

7





7. Without prejudice to the above, she would also
submit that the activity carried on by the Appellant was in
the nature of works contracted and the Appellant had
discharged Sales Tax/VAT as applicable and, in this
regard, she would draw our attention to a Circular dated
22.05.2007 whereby the Board has clarified that contracts
which were treated as ‘works contract for the purpose of
levy of VAT/Sales Tax’ shall be treated as ‘works contract
only for the purpose of levy of Service Tax’. In any case,
she would submit that this Bench in the Appellant’s own
case for an earlier period has clearly held that with effect
from 01.06.2007 the liability shall be only under works
contract provided the tax payer opts for the same. She
would thus pray for setting aside the impugned demands
and allow the Appeals.

8. Per contra , Smt. K. Vijaya Sree supported the
findings in the impugned order.

9.1 We have carefully considered the rival contentions
and we have also gone through the decision of Chennai
Bench in the Appellant’s own case for an earlier period
wherein, the demands confirmed on the basis of SCN

8





No.512 dt. 18.10.2011 (s upra ) have been set aside by
this Bench, following the decision of Larsen & Turbo
(L&T) supra. Further, in Para 2 of the impugned order the
Adjudicating Authority has clearly mentioned that basis
SCN No.512 issued for the period April 2007 to March
2011, the present SOD’s/SCN were issued and other than
this, we do not find any other supporting evidence placed
on record to establish that there was suppression or
fraud, etc., with intent to evade tax, to justify invoking
the extended period of limitation. The above facts clearly
establish that the ratio in Nizam Sugar Factory ( supra )
would squarely apply, meaning that the Revenue has
miserably failed to justify the invoking of the extended
period of limitation. It is an established principle of law
that the limitation which goes to the very root of the issue
needs to be ascertained so that the merits of demand
confirmed in the order would stand or fall. When the very
foundation is shaky then the following demand confirmed
in the order cannot stand.
9.2 Here in this case, as we have observed in the
earlier part of this order that the Revenue has not made
out a case as regards suppression, fraud etc., and
moreover even the earlier Order-in-Original referred

9





to/relied upon has been set aside holding that the Service
Tax liability under ’CRCS’ would not survive.

10. In view of the above discussion, we are satisfied
that the Revenue has not made out a case for invoking
the extended period of limitation and hence, the
impugned order cannot sustain. Resultantly, the
impugned order is set aside and the Appeals are allowed
with the consequential benefits, if any, as per law.


(Order pronounced in open court on 30.10.2026)



sd/- sd/-
(M. AJIT KUMAR) (P.DINESHA)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)


bhavani