2018 (4) TMI 770

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rged by the main contractor, the sub - contractor need not to pay the Service Tax. Though, such clarification has no legal sanctity after the introduction of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 , the same , apparently , could lead to bonafide belief on the part of the assessee - Appellants like the present assessee-Appellants who acted as a sub-contractor. The demand is hit by limitation. The assessee - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lity by their client to whom they provided such promotional services; and (ii) The second one is with reference to the limitation of demand. The period of demand is from 01.07.2003 to 31.05.2005 and the show cause notice was issued only on 23.09.2008. Prior to issuance of clarification dated 23.08.2007 by the Board, there were various instructions by the Board regarding non - liability of su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rt of the services provided by the client. Though the legal position is clear, but prior to the issue of said Circular dated 23.08.2007, admittedly, the Board had clarified on many occasions that when the full Service Tax liability was discharged by the main contractor, the sub - contractor need not to pay the Service Tax. Though, such clarification has no legal sanctity after the introduction of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X