9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority. Further, it is observed that the entire service tax demand is not for the period prior to 16.06.2005 and certain period of demand is after 16.6.2005 when immovable property was also covered under ‘Maintenance and Repair Services’. Charging of service tax from the sub-contractor - All the services provided by the appellant as sub-contractor may not be provided before 23.08.2007 as per the period of demand mentioned in the appeal memorandum. These factual verifications of entire service tax paid by the main contractor and whether the services were provide before or after 23.08.2007, have to be made and gone into details by the Adjudicating authority in the light of various case laws relied upon by the appellant, for which the matter is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remaining amount of confirmed demand of Rs. 74,27,362/-, pertaining to the period April 2004 to October 2008, was for the services provided by the appellant as sub-contractor when the main contractor has already discharged duty liability on the full value of the services. It was his case that as per CBEC Circular No. 96/7/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007 only it was provided that sub-contractors are liable to service tax and that before this period as per prescribed legal proposition service tax was not required to be paid by the sub-contractor, if the main contractor has paid service tax on the entire value of the contracted service. It was also his case that various arguments of the appellant on time bar aspect have not been properly dealt by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even payable for maintenance and repair of immovable property. Regarding service tax demand of Rs. 74,27,362/- on sub-contracted services, it was argued by learned AR that the entire demand is not for the period before 23.08.2007 as certain amounts for these services provided before 23.08.2007 were received by the appellant after 23.08.2007 on which Service Tax is required to be paid by the appellant as sub-contractor. It was also his case that it is not established from the records that main contractor has discharged full service tax liability on the entire contracted value, a part of which has been undertaken by the appellant for the period prior to 23.08.2007. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. As the issue lies in a nar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e clarification issued by CBEC on this point. Learned AR argued that there is no evidence on record that the main contractor has discharged full service tax liability on the entire value of the contracted service, a part of which was further sub-contracted to the appellant. It was also his case that all the services provided by the appellant as sub-contractor may not be provided before 23.08.2007 as per the period of demand mentioned in the appeal memorandum. These factual verifications of entire service tax paid by the main contractor and whether the services were provide before or after 23.08.2007, have to be made and gone into details by the Adjudicating authority in the light of various case laws relied upon by the appellant, for which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
