2018 (3) TMI 499

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - penalty u/s 76 is unwarranted. Appeal dismissed.
Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) For the Appellant: None For the Respondent: Shri K. P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) ORDER Per: Bench These appeals emanate out of the same order and were heard together and disposed of by this common order. The parties are referred to as "assessee" and "Revenue" for the sake of convenience. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants were engaged in "Erection, Commissioning and Installation work" had not discharged the service tax liability on the services rendered. After investigation and scrutiny of records, show-cause notice was issued to the appellants proposin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sessee paid ₹ 16,42,000/-. In reply, the assessee had stated that the service tax liability would be reduced since the amount of ₹ 24,34,597/- is the service tax on services rendered to M/s. RS Wind Tech, as sub-contractor. The respondents had only assisted M/s. RS Wind Tech, and documentary evidences were also produced. The original authority vide his order had confirmed the demand of ₹ 46,74,213/- being the service tax for services rendered to clients other than M/s. Wind Tech. The assessee had paid the amount along with interest even though the demand was time-barred. Taking the facts into consideration, the original authority had dropped the penalties imposed under section 76 and 77 of the Act. That the appellant is no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... None appeared for the appellants despite repeated notices issued. Heard the Ld. AR and perused the submissions made by the assessee in the appeal grounds. The assessee is aggrieved by confirmation of demand to the tune of ₹ 24,34,597/-. The assessee contends that the said amount pertains to services rendered as subcontractor to M/s. RS Wind Tech. That the main contractor having discharged the liability, the assessee cannot be called upon to pay the same. The assessee has not produced any evidence to establish that the assessee was a sub-contractor and that the main contractor has discharged the service tax liability. In the absence of such proof, the claim of the assessee cannot be considered. The category of impugned services in Ere .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X