9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 302 - AT - Service TaxDenial of the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 12/2003-ST - Abatement of 67% under notification No.1/2006-ST - Penalties under sections 76, 77 and 78 - Held that - matter referred to President for reference to the 3rd Member with the following questions (1) Whether the sub-contractor of a main contractor is liable to discharge the service tax liability on the services provided by him as held by the Ld. Member (Technical) relying on the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Vijay Sharma & Co. 2010 (4) TMI 570 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI and the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sew Construction Ltd. 2010 (11) TMI 469 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI OR The appellant being a sub-contractor is not liable to pay service tax prior to 23/08/2007 in view of the clarification issued by the Revenue vide Master Circular No. 96/7/2007 dated 23/08/2007 (2) Whether the appellant is liable to penalty under the provisions of Section 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 as held by the Ld. Member (Technical) relying on the decisions of the Hon ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Krishna Poduval 2005 (10) TMI 279 - Kerala High Court , and of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman SEBI Vs. Shriram Mutual Fund & Another 2006 (5) TMI 191 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills 2009 (5) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . OR The appellant is not liable to penalty under Section 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, inasmuch as the appellant had paid the tax with interest before issue of show-cause notice as held by the Ld. Member (Judicial).
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST regarding exclusion of cost of materials sold from the taxable value of services rendered. 2. Liability of a sub-contractor to pay service tax when the main contractor has discharged the service tax liability. 3. Invocation of the extended period of time for confirmation of service tax demand and the imposition of penalties under sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility for the Benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST: The adjudicating authority denied the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST on the ground that the appellant did not submit documentary evidence to support their claim for the sale of goods during the rendering of the service. However, the appellant argued that they had submitted relevant documents to the investigating agency, as indicated in the show cause notice. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority should have examined these documents and provided a finding. The appellant expressed readiness to submit the documents again if given an opportunity. Therefore, the Tribunal decided that the matter should be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of this issue. 2. Liability of Sub-contractor to Pay Service Tax: The Tribunal referenced the larger bench decision in Vijay Sharma & Co. [2010 (20) STR 309 (Tri.LB)], which held that service tax is a single point tax and should not be doubly taxable. However, another decision in Sew Construction Ltd. [2011(22) STR 666 (Tri. Del)] stated that there is no provision in the Finance Act, 1994, to exempt sub-contractors from service tax. The Tribunal concluded that the argument that sub-contractors are exempt if the main contractor pays the service tax is without legal basis and contrary to the CENVAT Credit Scheme. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's contention and upheld that sub-contractors must pay service tax regardless of the main contractor's tax payments. 3. Invocation of Extended Period of Time and Imposition of Penalties: The appellant argued that the extended period should not be invoked as they were under the bona fide belief that they were not liable to pay service tax since the main contractor was discharging the tax. The Tribunal found this claim unconvincing, noting that the appellant had deliberately stopped paying service tax due to changes in notification conditions and had also stopped filing service tax returns. The Tribunal held that the extended period was rightly invoked due to suppression of facts by the appellant. Regarding penalties, the Tribunal upheld penalties under sections 76 and 77 but noted that penalty under section 78 should be re-determined after re-computing the service tax demand. Separate Judgments Delivered by Judges: One judge agreed with the findings on the first issue and directed the adjudicating authority to allow a 67% rebate for the material component. On the second issue, the judge differed, stating that the appellant should be liable to pay service tax as a sub-contractor only from 23.08.2007, following the master circular. On the third issue, the judge agreed with the invocation of the extended period but set aside penalties under sections 76 and 78, considering that the appellant had paid the tax with interest before the issue of the show-cause notice. Difference of Opinion: Due to the difference of opinion between the two members, the following points were referred to the Hon'ble President for reference to a third member: 1. Whether the sub-contractor is liable to discharge service tax liability on services provided by him, as held by the Ld. Member (Technical), or not liable prior to 23/08/2007 as held by the Ld. Member (Judicial). 2. Whether the appellant is liable to penalties under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, as held by the Ld. Member (Technical), or not liable as held by the Ld. Member (Judicial) since the tax was paid with interest before the issue of the show-cause notice.
|
