9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 993X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmation of service tax demand for the period April 2007 to September 2010. The issue of non-payment of service tax by the sub-contractor, when the same was paid by the main contractor was debatable, subject to various interpretations. Accordingly, favorably interpreting the provisions that the sub-contractor is not liable to pay service tax, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the service tax demand - the respondent cannot be saddled with liability beyond the normal period of limitation - For computation of the service tax demand within the normal period of limitation, the matter remanded back to the original authority for necessary computation. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/50903/2014-CU[DB] - 55117/2017 - Dated:- 13-7-2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecisions of this Tribunal in the case of Ramzan Beg Contractor V. CCE ST, Bhopal-2017-TIOL-1935-CESTAT-DEL; West Coast Constructions V. CCE ST- 2015-TIOL-2699-CESTAT-BANG; S.V. Engineering Construction V. CCE ST, Guntur-2017-TIOL-433-CESTAT-HYD; and Power Mech Projects Ltd. V. CC, Guntur-2016-TIOL-3137CESTAT-HYD . He further submitted that the proceedings are barred by limitation of time inasmuch as non-payment of service tax was due to the bonafide belief that the same had already been deposited by the main contractor. Thus, there is no element of suppression, fraud etc, justifying invocation of extended period of limitation and the Show Cause Proceedings have to be confined to the normal period as provided under Section 73 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service tax demand for the period April 2007 to September 2010. The issue of non-payment of service tax by the sub-contractor, when the same was paid by the main contractor was debatable, subject to various interpretations. Accordingly, favorably interpreting the provisions that the sub-contractor is not liable to pay service tax, the Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the service tax demand. Thus, we are of the view that the respondent cannot be saddled with liability beyond the normal period of limitation. We also find that the Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of K T Murukan Vs. Commissioner Cochin, reported in 2017-TIOL-497-HC-KERALA-ST , in an identical situation has held that non-payment of service tax and non-filing of ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
