9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble on any taxable services provided, whether or not the services are provided by a person in his capacity as a sub-contractor and whether or not such services are used as input services - demand upheld - matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to re-determine the quantum of demand, interest and penalty u/s 76 of the Act for the normal period of limitation - appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/518/11, CO/25/12 - FO/A/76135/2017 - Dated:- 27-3-2017 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Shri Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri A.Roy, Supdt. (AR) for the Revenue Shri A. K. Agarwal, C.A. for the Respondent ORDER Per Shri P.K.Choudhary. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitation may be invoked and referred to the CBEC's Circular No.96/7/2007-S.T., dated 23.8.2007. 4. On the other hand, the ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent strongly contended that the Board's Circular No.96/07/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007 as relied upon by the ld.AR is in contradiction of the earlier Circular where the Board had clarified that the sub-contractor is not required to pay the tax as the main contractor would pay the tax. The ld.Counsel referred to CBEC Circular No.B-43-5-97 dated 02.07.1997 and Circular No.B-43/1/97-TRU dated 06.06.1997. He also contended that the respondent furnished the declaration/letter dated 29.12.2008 of the main contractor M/s.MICCO, that they have paid the tax. 5. We find that b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficers and other stakeholders, it is proposed to codify and issue a comprehensive circular on the technical issues. Thus, there is no suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of tax and therefore, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. Similarly, the imposition of penalty under Section 78 is also not sustainable. 7. In view of the above discussion, we uphold the Adjudication Order to the extent of the demand of Service Tax along with interest for the normal period of limitation and imposition of penalty under Section 77(1) and 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. Penalty under Section 76 is upheld. The demand of Service Tax for the extended period of limitation and penalty under Section 78 of the Act are set aside. The matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
