9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 994 for setting aside the final order dated 13.7.2016, Annexure A.3, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, claiming following substantial questions of law:- "i) Whether the CESTAT is right in holding that the service tax paid by the main contractor on behalf of the party can be treated as payment made by the party when the service tax law in the instant case, provides for assessment and payment of the due tax by the service provider? ii) Whether the CESTAT is right in passing an order by not discussing all the facts present before it? 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The respondent-assessee was engaged in providin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pay service tax on these services. However, it was opined that the payment of service tax by the main contractor on behalf of the assessee shall be treated as payment made by it. It was further held that in view of Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2012, the assessee was not liable to pay service tax on the activity of maintenance and repair of roads and thus, demand on this account was set aside. Accordingly, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for verification purpose whether the assessee paid service tax for the remaining part of the demand and if the same was found to be paid, no demand shall be sustainable against it. Hence the instant appeal by the appellant-revenue. 4. We have heard learned counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e three references before us, it would be proper to send the matter back to the original authority, without being sent to the concerned benches, to verify as to whether the stock brokers have paid service tax on behalf of the sub-brokers and if so, reduce the demand of sub-brokers to that extent and pass fresh orders, granting fair opportunity of hearing to the sub-brokers. All the appeals are allowed by way of remand. 7. Further, we find that in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. (Supra) in the case of income tax wherein the office incharge was required to deduct TDS from the payments made to the deductee/assessee and the deductor failed to deduct the TDS but the deductee/assessee paid the income tax. In that circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the remaining part of the services tax demand. If the same is found to be correct, no demand shall be sustainable against the appellant." 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue had referred to the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in Sunil Hi-Tech Engineers Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Nagpur, 2014 (36) S.T.R. 408 (Tri. Mumbai), in support of his submission. Suffice it to notice even the decision of the said Tribunal is of no assistance to the revenue as it was based on individual fact situation involved therein. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant revenue has not been able to point out any error or illegality in the findings recorded by the Tribunal, warranting interference by this Court. No substantial question of law ari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
