9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 379X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 173/2003 dated 28-10-2003 by which the appellants claimed to be treated as Architect and Landscape Designers has been rejected and also their plea that they were only sub-contractors of M/s. Chandravarkar and Thacker (P) Ltd., Bangalore and therefore the Service Tax is not leviable on the sub-contractors. 2. The Commissioner (A) has note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought is not correct when the facts were known to the department. He further points out that the fact that appellant being a sub-contractor to the M/s. Chandravarkar and Thacker (P) Ltd. is an admitted fact and not disputed by Revenue. In such a circumstance, Revenue cannot proceed to recover the Service Tax against the sub-contractor, as noted by the Trade Notice No.53-CE/ST/97 dated 4-9-97 issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not disputed and hence, the demands are not sustainable. 4. The learned JDR contested these submissions and also the citations. He submits that Revenue has not yet filed their appeal against these orders and there is a possibility of Revenue challenging these orders. 5. On a careful consideration, we notice from the records that the appellant never claimed themselves to be Interior Decorat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has also been issued by New Delhi Commissionerate. The citations, Board Circular and Trade Notice clearly apply to the facts of the case. The demands raised against the sub-contractor for levy of Service Tax are not justified in law and hence, the impugned order is set aside by allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court) - - TaxTMI - TMITa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
