9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 61,44,148/-have been included in the gross value covered by appeal No. ST/92 of 2008 so that there shall not be over lapping of demand - Appeal is disposed of - ST/92 & 851/2008 - ST/80-81/2010(PB) - Dated:- 2-11-2010 - S/Shri D.N. Panda, Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Rajesh Kumar, C.A., for the Appellant. S/Shri Sumit Kumar and I. Beig, DRs, for the Respondent. [Order per : D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. The short issue in this case is whether the sub-contractor who provided service to the main contractor shall be exempted from levy of service tax. The appellant being a sub-contractor of BHEL, executed certain work for such main contractor. The main contractor BHEL was awarded work order by BESCL. There is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue Investment Centre v. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2010-TIOL-1215-CESTAT-DEL-LB, = 2010 (20) S.T.R. 309 (Tri-LB) to argue that sub-contractor is not liable to tax. He further submits that fit liability is determined cum-tax benefit be given to the appellant. 3. Learned DR appearing on behalf of revenue supports entire reasoning and consequence of the order of adjudication. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. We do not find any provision in the Finance Act, 1994 to grant immunity to the sub-contractor from levy of service tax when undisputedly taxable services were provided by them. No evidence was before us to notice whether the service provided by the sub-contractor to the contractor was ever been taxed. We noticed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oker may not be denied to be set off against ultimate service tax liability of the stock broker if the stock broker is made liable to service tax for the self same transaction. Such set off depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and subject to verification of evidence as well as rules made under the law w.e.f. 10-9-2004. No set off is permissible prior to this date when sub broker was not within the fold of law during that period. 6. We noticed that there was non-compliance to the law by the sub-contractor-appellant. When we found that the appellant is made liable under Finance Act, 1994 and has paid taxes, cum-tax benefit cannot be denied. So also if there is benefit available towards Cenvat credit that shall not be deniabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. ST/851/2008 10. This appeal involves consequential issue of Appeal No. ST/92 of 2008 decided today in preceding paragraphs. There was demand of Rs. 61,44,148/- raised under the Finance Act, 1994 on the ground of short payment. We have noticed in Appeal No. 92/2008 that Cenvat credit claim of the appellant is subject to scrutiny for which we have issued direction. In view of such a direction, we have partly set aside the impugned order for scrutiny of Cenvat credit which is covered by this appeal. So far as the levy of demand of Service tax of Rs. 61,44,148/- which relates to the period March, 2006 to September, 2006 covered by two return periods, the learned AR submits that the gross value of service pertaining to the tax demand of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
