9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 961X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zed Representative (DR) - for the Respondent. ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran :- The appeal is against order dated 14/12/2011 of Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal. The appellants were working as sub-contractors of M/s Macmet India Ltd., Calcutta during the period 2004-2005 to 2007-2008, in connection with work order for structural fabrication and erection work of conveyor system at ACC, Cement Works. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of service tax on the whole contract by the main contractor M/s Macmet India Ltd. has been submitted to the lower Authorities, who did not consider the evidence as conclusive. He submitted that they have produced detailed certificate from the main contractor to state that they (appellant) have never raised any service tax bill to the main contractor and the main contractor discharged service tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e are other evidences already submitted by the appellant during the course of investigation. Admittedly, the Circular dated 23/08/2007 issued by the Board clarified the decision regarding the service tax liability of the sub-contractors. However, for the periods prior to that the situation as clarified by the Ministry and followed in various decisions of the Tribunal as well as High Courts that wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re-verification of the service tax payments made by the main contractor and in case the service tax liability has been clearly discharged by the main contractor for the whole contract and the appellant's liability as a sub-contractor is part and parcel of that main contract then the service tax liability again cannot be put on the appellant. In case such evidences are not categorically forthcomin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
