##PAGE1##

1 Appeal No. ST/27384/2013

CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. – I

Service Tax Appeal No. 27384 of 2013 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No.23/2013-Adjn (Commr) S.T. dated 01.05.2013 passed

by Pr. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad)

M/s Swarnandhra IJM II Integrated .. APPELLANT Township Development Co. Pvt Ltd.,

H.No.1-89/1, Plot No.42 & 43, Kavuri Hills,

Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 081.

VERSUS Commissioner of Customs, Central .. RESPONDENT

Excise and Service Tax Hyderabad - IV

Posnett Bhavan, Tilak road, Ramkote,

Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 001.

APPEARANCE:

Shri B. Venugopal, Advocate for the Appellant.

Shri B. Sangameshwar Rao, Authorized Representative for the Respondent. CORAM: HON’BLE Mr. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HON’BLE Mr. ANGAD PRASAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER No. A/30170/2026 Date of Hearing: 02.12.2025 Date of Decision: 01.04.2026

[ORDER PER: ANGAD PRASAD]

The present appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Original No.

23/2013-Adjn (Commr) S.T. dated 01.05.2013, whereby, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 1,47,62,972/- along with interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and penalties

under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act.

2 Appeal No. ST/27384/2013

2. The appellant, M/s Swarnandhra IJM II Integrated Township Development Company (P) Ltd., is a joint venture between M/s IJM India Infrastructure Ltd., and M/s Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (APHB) and is

engaged in the development of an integrated township project.

3. During the course of audit the Department issued Show Cause Notice dated 24.04.2012 proposing demand of Service Tax on the following

grounds:

a) Consulting Engineer Service received from IJM, Berhad, Malaysia under Reverse Charge Mechanism in terms of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 for the period October 2006 to March 2007, involving Service Tax of

Rs. 14,75,972/-.

b) Construction of Complex Service for the period July 2007 to January

2009, involving Service Tax of Rs. 1,32,87,000/-.

c) Service Tax demand to Renting of Immovable Property, which was later draft by the Adjudicating Authority.

4. After adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority confirms the demand relating to Consulting Engineer Services and Construction of Complex

Service, along with interest and equal penalty.

5. Aggrieved by the above order, the appellant has filed the present

appeal before the Tribunal.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the entire construction activity undertaken by the appellant was in the nature of composite of Works

Contracts involving transfer of property in goods.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that prior to 01.06.2007, there was no specific taxable category or Works Contract Services and therefore, composite contracts could not be vivisected to levy Service Tax under other categories. Learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

3 Appeal No. ST/27384/2013

Commissioner of Service Tax Vs L & T Ltd., [2015 (39) STR 913 SC] wherein, it was held that composite Works Contract are taxable only under “Works Contract Service” introduced from 01.06.2007 and not under other

taxable categories.

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that after 01.06.2007, indivisible Works Contract Service are liable only under category of Works Contract Service and not Construction of Complex Service. In this regard Learned Counsel for the appellant reliance placed on foreign

decisions:

i) Real Value Promoters (p) Ltd., Vs Commissioner of GST & CE, Chennai [2018-TIOL-2867-CESTAT-MAD]

ii) Navya Constructions Vs Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Visakhapatnam – I – Final Order No. A/30225/2023 dated

08.08.2023.

iii) NCC Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax –

Final Order No. A/30052/2023 dated 13.04.2023.

iv) Ramky Infrastructure Ltd., Vs