9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's appeal is against that part of the impugned order vide which he has dropped the penalty, by invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. We have heard Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Shri Amresh Jain, learned DR appearing for the Revenue. 3. As per facts on record, the appellant entered into an agreement dated 30/3/02 with M/s Airport Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as AAI) for handling of cargo at Delhi International Airport. M/s AAI is engaged in providing cargo handling services to various airlines, who unload the imported cargo at Delhi Airport and are charging the other airlines for providing the said cargo handling services. M/s AAI is registered with the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t taxable service prior to 16th June, 2005, they cannot be liable to pay service tax. Apart from that they contended that M/s AAI has paid the service tax on the entire value received by them from the other airlines and the appellant being a sub-contractor of M/s AAI for providing the same services, no separate service tax can be confirmed against them. They also contested the demand on the point of limitation. 6. The above submissions do not stand accepted by the Adjudicating Authority, who observed that the appellants cannot be considered to be sub-contractors as they are providing cargo handling services independently to M/s AAI. The fact that M/s AAI has paid the service tax on the entire consideration received by them from the other a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liability at the full consideration received by them from the other airlines. It is out of the said consideration, that a part is being given to the present appellant as a sub-contractor, for doing the job of loading, unloading, packing and unpacking etc. The fact that M/s AAI has paid the entire service tax on the full consideration does not stand disputed by the Commissioner. During the relevant period there were various Circulars and trade notices by the Commissionerate clarifying that where the principle service provider discharged his duty liability on the entire value of the services, a separate liability cannot be carved out against the sub-contractor. The said Circulars stands taken note of by the Tribunal in various judgments and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... By applying the ratio of the above decisions to the facts of the present case, we find that in as much as the payment of service tax on the full cargo handling service does not stand disputed by the Adjudicating Authority, second time confirmation of service tax on that part of the services, which stands further delegated to the appellant, cannot be upheld. We also note that there are certificates given by M/s AAI indicating that they have paid service tax on the full considerations and the job contract given to the appellant is in the nature of sub-contractor at a lump-sum rate. As such, there is no dispute about payment of full service tax by M/s AAI. In the light of the discussion above, we set aside the confirmation of demand of duty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
