9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 893X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. 3. As per facts on records, the respondent entered into the contract with M/s. NTPC for Site Formation, Clearance and Excavation Services. However, instead of providing the said services themselves, they upload the entire contract to sub-contractor M/s. M.K. Gupta and Company. It is an admitted position that the sub-contractor M/s. M.K. Gupta and Company discharged the entire service tax liability on the work done by them. 4. However, Revenue being of the view that it is the respondent who entered into a contract for providing the services and as such he should have discharged the service tax liability, conducted enquiries at the end of the respondent. The respondent agreed to discharge the service tax and voluntarily pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether failed to establish the suppression of facts, willful misstatement, fraud etc. on the contrary the records available before me suggests that the Appellant always cooperated with department at every stage and made available the records as and when required. All the facts clearly indicate that the Appellant had no where tried to suppress the facts and there was no malafide or deliberate intention on the part of the Appellant to evade payment of duty and whatever mistake were there on the part of Appellant was solely due to bonafide belief, prevailing confusion being a new levy, unawareness of the provisions of Finance Act. Here I would also like to add that when once it is proved that the Assessee has made the mistake under bonafide bel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tute. 7. Revenue is on the ground that the respondents were aware of their responsibility to discharge the service tax liability and as such by not obtaining the registration and by not paying the service tax, they have invited penal action. There is no reason to extend the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act to them. On the other hand, we find that the assessee had taken a categorically stand that inasmuch as it was not they who were actually providing the services and inasmuch as the actual executor of the contract was M/S. M.K. Gupta, who had discharged service tax liability, they were under a bonafide belief that there would not be any tax liability upon them. 8. We also note that the Commissioner (Appeals) has obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
