9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so find that the Applicant was registered with the Service Tax department for the disputed period and discharged Service Tax when services were rendered by them as a contractor, but failed to pay Service Tax when they rendered service as a sub-contractor without disclosing these facts to the department. Hence, prima facie it cannot be said that the entire demand is barred by limitation. In these; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... civil structures as a subcontractor for M/s.Larsen Toubro Ltd., the main contractor. 2. The Ld.Chartered Accountant has initially submitted that since the principal contractor M/s.Larsen Toubro had discharged Service Tax for the services rendered by the Applicant, as sub-contractor, therefore, there would not be any liability of Service Tax on the Applicant for second time on the same set of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extended period of limitation without any suppression of facts or misstatement on their part and hence the demand is barred by limitation. 3. The Ld.A.R. for the Revenue has submitted that the issue of levy of Service Tax on the Applicant as sub-contractor is no more res integra in view of the decision of the larger Bench in the case of Vijay Sharma Co. vs. CCE, Chandigarh - 2010 (20) S.T.R. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s would amount to tax the services rendered twice, which is incorrect in law. In the present case, the Applicant was allowed sufficient time to place the proof of payment of Service Tax by the principal contractor M/s.Larsen Toubro Ltd. which they failed to do. Prima facie, we also find that the Applicant was registered with the Service Tax department for the disputed period and discharged Servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
