9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BESCL. There is no dispute by either side on this modality of arrangement of contractor and sub-contractor. There is also no dispute that period involved in adjudication is 8th July, 2005 to 7th August, 2006. When the appellant sub-contractor did not seek registration under Finance Act, 1994 and also did not file the return till 24th January, 2007 for the above period, faced adjudication, resulting in levy of service tax demand of Rs. 1,51,14,126/- with equal amount of penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. So also penalty under Sections 76 and 77 was levied. The demand levied above was followed by interest under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994. 2. Learned Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of the appellant submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever been taxed. We noticed that para 9 of the Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s. Vijay Sharma & Co. cited by the learned AR clearly speaks that a sub-contractor shall not be immune from service tax under Finance Act, 1994. The said para 9 is reproduced below for appreciation. "9. It is true that there is no provision under Finance Act, 1994 for double taxation. The scheme of service tax law suggest that it is a single point tax law without being a multiple taxation legislation. In absence of any statutory provision to the contrary, providing of service being event of levy, self same service provided shall not be doubly taxable. If service tax is paid by a sub-broker in respect of same taxable service provided by the stock-bro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds Cenvat credit that shall not be deniable subject to scrutiny under the provisions of Cenvat law. By this, we do not say that the appellant sub-contractor shall be entitled to Cenvat credit, if otherwise disentitled. 7. We do not find any substance in the arguments that the proceedings is time-barred when there is escapement of scrutiny and the appellant did not seek registration to claim its bona fide. So also returns were not filed to claim bona fide. Therefore, there shall not be any concession in penalty. But we hold that the appellant shall be liable to service tax being bracketed by charging section of the law for the service provided. 8. In conclusion, we hold as under :- (i) The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by two return periods, the learned AR submits that the gross value of service pertaining to the tax demand of Rs. 61,44,148/- has already been covered in the taxation in the appeal No. ST/92 of 2008 because the assessee has disclosed in its return this figure due to bifurcation of return periods. The same gross value has undergone taxation and cannot be doubly taxed. But learned Commissioner denied that. But Revenue supports order of Authority below. 11. Upon hearing the matter and pleading of both sides, we have remanded the matter in Appeal No. ST/92 of 2008 in the manner indicated aforesaid. Therefore consequence of appeal No. ST/92/2008 having bearing on this appeal, pleading of double taxation can be factually examined and both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
