9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber. The Department in the course of investigation found that the service provider/appellant had not properly discharged the service tax liability on the taxable service provided by them. The period in question is 16.6.2005 to 31.3.2010. 2. The present issue relates to the service provided by the appellant to one RNS Infrastructure Limited, who according to the appellant is the principal contractor. The case of the Department is that the service tax liability in respect of the service rendered to RNS Infrastructure Limited has not been discharged by the appellant, whereas the appellant's plea is that the principal contractor RNS Infrastructure Limited have deducted the service tax liability and had paid the same to the Departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the ST-3 returns of RNS Infrastructure Limited, an application was filed by the appellant to modify the order dated 12.3.2013. In support of that application for modification, the appellant submitted the details of payment made by the principal contractor. The Tribunal by Miscellaneous order No.41375 of 2013 dated 27.5.2013 rejected the application for modification on the ground that the details were not filed before the Original Authority. Against this order dated 27.5.2013 passed by the Tribunal declining to modify the pre-deposit order, C.M.A.No.278 of 2014 has been filed. In the meanwhile, the Tribunal dismissed the main appeal for non-compliance of the condition imposed and as a consequence, the appellant filed C.M.A.No.2053 of 2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment, however, has not proceeded to enquire into that, but proceeded to hold that the assessee had not filed the relevant documents. Hence, the order of the Tribunal has to be set aside. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the assessee and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent/Department and perused the materials placed before this Court. 8. It is relevant to note that the appellant has produced relevant documents before the Tribunal as well as before this Court. If the stand of the appellant that the service tax liability is discharged is proved to be correct on the basis of the records furnished, the Department ought to have consider payment of service tax in the light of such statement. This stand is not a new ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der. 10. In such circumstances, we feel that subject to verification of those records, which they have filed before the Tribunal and before this Court, the Tribunal should go into the issue, so that the claim of the appellant on the discharge of service tax liability by the principal contractor could be tested before the appropriate forum. However, for the purpose of deciding the main appeal we are inclined to modify the order of the Tribunal in the following manner: i) The order of the Tribunal dated 27.05.2014 is modified to the effect that the appellant shall make a pre-deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) towards pre-deposit on or before 23.12.2014 and subject to such compliance, as stated in the order of the Tribunal da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
