9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was observed that they are sub-contractors to Bridge & Roof Co (I) Ltd (B&R) and were receiving some consideration towards services rendered of erection commissioning or installation services and supply of temporary manpower services. After considering the response of appellant to the various letters of the Range Officers, and verification of the balance-sheet and the contracts executed by them with B&R, lower authorities came to a conclusion that appellant is liable to discharge service tax liability as a sub-contractor for the period April 2004 to March 2008 under the category of erection, commissioning or installation services and Rs. 1,41,589/- short paid under the category of manpower recruitment or supply agency services. The said s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very same period involved. It is the further submission that the demand of Rs. 65,67,046/- under the category is covered by the decision and as regards demand of Rs. 1,41,589/- appellant is eligible for benefit of small-scale service provider exemption as a total turnover during the period involved was less than Rs. 10,00,000/-. 4. Revenue is in appeal against the said impugned order for dropping of demand of Rs. 71,18,383/- as this amount is in respect of fabrication and erection of structural and architectural work for power house grading support or for fabrication and would not fall under the category of erection commissioning or installation service. 5. Learned counsel also submits that the demand is hit by limitation as the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty be upheld and demands dropped by him be confirmed. 7. After considering the submissions made by both sides, we find that the issue is correctly put forth by both sides. The issue is regarding the demand of service tax liability of the amounts received by appellant from M/s B&R for being their sub-contractors engaged in executing the said sub contractor work. We find from the records that the demand raised on the appellant under this category of being taxable as a sub-contractor for the period April 2004 to September 2007 seems to be incorrect as identical issue cropped up before this Bench in the case of Power Mech Projects Ltd (supra) wherein the Bench in Paragraph No 5 held as under: 5. We are convinced and satisfied with the argumen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue on the same point for which the adjudicating authority has dropped the proceedings would be of no consequence and accordingly, the Revenue's appeal also stands rejected. 8. As regards the demand of Rs. 1,41,589/- under the category of manpower recruitment or supply agency services, we find that this demand is sustainable on the appellant. It is undisputed that appellant had during the period in question had supplied temporary manpower to B&R for executing various works on M/s B&R. This would fall under the category of manpower recruitment or supply agency services. The point which has been urged by the learned counsel that appellant would be eligible for small scale service providers exemption will not carry their case any further as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
