9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P.G. Chacko, B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. Shri Ramesh Ananthan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Ganesh Haavanur, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J) (Oral)]. - This application filed by the appellant seeks waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of Service Tax of Rs. 17,33,507/- and penalty of Rs. 13,36,368/-. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with pre-deposit, we take up the appeal. 2. The appellant, as a sub-contractor for the builders viz. M/s. SKS Group, Mangalore, undertook construction work for a project called Binary Homes during the period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld the order-in-original. The present appeal of the assessee is directed against the appellate Commissioner s order. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Revenue is not entitled to demand Service Tax on the same subject matter from both the builder and their sub-contractor. It is submitted that, even if it be assumed that the appellant (sub-contractor) is also liable to pay the tax, they cannot be compelled to pay the tax on the gross taxable value including the cost of materials and goods supplied by the main contractor. It is submitted that the appellant is entitled to claim abatement from the gross value to the extent of 67% in terms of the Exemption Notifications. In this connection, the learned counsel has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by the learned SDR. It is not in dispute that the work undertaken by the appellant was one awarded to them by the builder namely M/s. SKS Group. It is also not in dispute that whatever materials and goods were received by the builder from the beneficiary were transmitted to the appellant for being used in the construction service. The builder admittedly paid Service Tax on the gross taxable value including the cost of such materials. 8. We are told that the refund claimed by the builder before the original authority is on the ground that they were not liable to pay Service Tax on the taxable value on which the sub-contractor (the present appellant) paid tax. In the present case of the appellant, the main contention raised by the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
