9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has paid the service tax. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not taken the certificate on record nor gave any finding on this aspect. - matter remanded back. - ST/327/2009 - A/108/2011-WZB/C-IV(SMB) - Dated:- 4-1-2011 - Shri S.K. Gaule, JJ REPRESENTED BY : Shri D.H. Nadkarni, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri N.A. Sayyed, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. SB(63)63/STC/2009, dated 8-10-2009 whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the lower adjudicating authority s order dated 20-6-2006 confirming the demand of service tax of Rs. 1,70,607/- and imposition of various penalties. 3. The above facts of the case are th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -8-2007, the date on which the circular was issued. The learned counsel also pointed out to para 3 of Ministry of Finance (D.R.) letter No. 11/3/98-TRU dated 7-10-1998 which clarified that service tax would be required to be paid in a case where sub-contracting is to a different service category and the appellant was not providing any service of this kind. In support of their contention the appellant have also cited the Tribunal decision in the case of Urvi Construction v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad - 2010 (17) S.T.R. 302. The appellant contended that service tax in this case has been paid by Ambience. They have also produced a certificate dated 15-11-2007 to this effect before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant have also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant placed reliance on various case laws. In case of Urvi Construction (supra) the Tribunal held that, in case the appellant is required to pay service tax it would amount to taxing the same service twice. In the case of BBR (India) Ltd. (supra) the Tribunal held that the organisation which actually provide the service, the liability to pay service tax rest with them and not on the sub-consultant and decided the case in favour of the assessee; and, in the case of Oikos (supra) it was held that the demand raised against the sub-contractor for levy of service tax are not justified in law. The above case laws supports their view that the liability to pay service tax is on the prime or principal service provider. The appellant submitted th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
