9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he service tax liability for the some work, tax amount paid twice, cannot be retained by the Government, as the legitimate due; and on claim of one tax as refund by either of the person, the same should have been refunded. Thus, the service tax paid by the respondent should be eligible for the refund benefit. It is also found that the respondent had enclosed copy of invoices, showing payment of VAT/ Sales Tax on the material component, used for providing the works contract service. Since works contract service was specifically brought into tax net only with effect from 01.06.2007, the respondent should not be liable to pay service tax under the taxable category of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service prior to such date Refun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show that they were in fact the sub-contractor of the work, ultimately executed by the main contractor, M/s Devi Constructions. On appeal against the adjudication order, learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent, holding that it should be entitled for the refund of service tax. Feeling aggrieved with the adjudication order, Revenue has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Revenue has assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that the respondent being a service provider, was liable to pay service tax under the category of Commercial or Industrial Construction Service and service tax paid by the main contractor cannot absolve the respondent from its statutory liabilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this ground also. In this context, he referred to the submission made by the respondent, which has been recorded in paragraph 3 in the impugned order. 6. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 7. It is an admitted fact on record that for providing Commercial and Industrial Construction Service to the client of the main contractor, both the main contractor as well as the respondent had discharged the service tax liability. The fact is also not disputed that the main contractor had not additionally provided any taxable service to its client, over and above the services provided by the respondent to it under the capacity of sub-contractor. Thus, for providing the same taxable service viz. Commercial and Industrial Construction S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
