9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts are available and raw input/capital goods have been received, the benefit of CENVAT Credit is allowed - The appellant did not make debit of the CENVAT Credit and did not make proper entries in the ST-3 return, confirmation of service tax demand is not justifiable - Therefore, the matter is required to be remanded to original adjudicating authority, who shall verify the CENVAT Credit account of the appellant and if sufficient credit is available, deduct the same from the actual service tax liability after requiring the appellant to make the debit - As regards the service tax liability a circular issued by the Board stating that sub-contractor is not liable - Thus, the appellant is not liable in the capacity of sub-contractor.- Held that: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit amount, value of input taxable services was shown as value of break-up of taxable service realized. Because of this error, duty demand has been confirmed on the ground that the appellant had not discharged service tax liability by making debits in CENVAT Credit account. He submits that because of clerical error, the service tax cannot be demanded twice and the benefit of CENVAT Credit should have been allowed after examining the records maintained by the appellant and finding whether he is eligible or not. As regards demand of service tax of Rs. 28,373/- he submits that this service was rendered as a sub-contractor and prior to September 2007, a sub-contractor was not leviable to Service tax. 3. Learned SDR, on the other hand, sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T Credit and did not make proper entries in the ST-3 return, confirmation of service tax demand is not justifiable. Therefore, the matter is required to be remanded to original adjudicating authority, who shall verify the CENVAT Credit account of the appellant and if sufficient credit is available, deduct the same from the actual service tax liability after requiring the appellant to make the debit. It is the submission of the appellant that if this is done, no amount is payable. As regards liability of the payment of Rs. 28,373/-, learned Chartered Accountant submitted that there was a circular issued by the Board stating that sub-contractor is not liable and only in September 2007, this instruction was reversed. However, these facts have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
