9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /1999 and Trade Notice No.7/98-St dt. 13/10/1998 of CCE, Mumbai wherein it was clarified that the service rendered by the subcontractor to the main contractor is not liable to service tax as the main contractor was paying the service tax on the entire work done including that of the respondent. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ST/CROSS/222/2009 in ST/192/2009-DB - Final Order No. 21432/2018 - Dated:- 24-9-2018 - Mr. S.S Garg, Judicial Member And Mr. P. Anjani Kumar, Technical Member For the Appellant : Smt. Kavita Podwal, Superintendent(AR) For the Respondent : Shri N. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate ORDER PER : SS GARG The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dt. 18/11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x to the extent of 67% of the gross taxable value of services as per Notification No.18/2005-St dt. 07/06/2005 to 30/09/2006 works out to ₹ 48,54,133/- and education cess ₹ 87,510/-. A show-cause notice dt. 12/09/2007 was issued demanding service tax and education cess amounting to ₹ 49,41,643/- which was short paid during the period from 16/06/2005 to 30/09/2006. After following due process of law, the Jt. Commissioner confirmed the demand of service tax and also imposed penalty under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the said order, assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who vide the impugned order allowed the appeal by holding that when the main contractor has paid the service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period involved in the present case is from 16/06/2005 to 30/09/2006 and the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE C, Kerala Vs. Larsen Toubro Limited [Civil appeal No.6770/2004, Judgment dt. 20/08/2015] wherein the Supreme Court has held that the composite contracts are not taxable prior to 01/06/2007. Therefore works contract is not taxable during the relevant period. He further submitted that the sub-contractor is not liable to be paid service tax if the main contractor has discharged the tax liability on the entire service rendered prior to 23/08/2007. He further submitted that as per the Board circular and trade notices, the assessee was not liable to pay service tax as sub-contractor of the main contractor if the main contracto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Larsen Toubro Ltd. cited supra wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has held that works contracts are not liable to service tax prior to 01/06/2007 and in the present case, the period involved is 16/06/2005 to 30/09/2006. Further we also find that assessee s case is covered by various circulars issued by the Board cited supra wherein it was clarified that the service rendered by the subcontractor to the main contractor is not liable to service tax as the main contractor was paying the service tax on the entire work done including that of the respondent. By following the ratios of the above said decisions relied upon by the assessee, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and therefore we uphold the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
