9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xemption available to the services provided to IIT, Kharagpur does not depend on whether such services are provided directly by the main contractor or by the main contractor using the services of a sub-contractor. The services rendered by the appellant through the main contractor to IIT, Kharagpur are exempted under Sec.102 of the Finance Act, 1994. The application for refund has been filed within the time stipulated in the section. The appellant is not liable to pay service tax as he has already paid the same and he is entitled to refund under Sec.102 of the Finance Act, 1994 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. ST/31037/2018 - A/30454/2019 - Dated:- 5-4-2019 - MR. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TEC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... renovation or alteration of (a) a civil structure or any other original works meant predominantly for use other than for commerce, industry or any other business or profession; (b) a structure meant predominantly for use as (i) an educational establishment; (ii) a clinical establishment; or (iii) an art or cultural establishment; (c) a residential complex predominantly meant for self-use or for the use of their employees or other persons specified in Explanation 1 to clause (44) of section 65B of the said Act, under a contract entered into before the 1st day of March, 2015 and on which appropriate stamp duty, where applicable, ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e one who has rendered services to IIT, Kharagpur and if so they could have claimed refund of service tax under Sec.102. However, they have not done so and instead the appellant had filed the refund claim which is not correct because they rendered services to M/s NCCL which is a private company and not to IIT, Kharagpur. 4. It is the case of the appellant that they had rendered services to IIT, Kharagpur themselves but as a sub-contractor through the main contractor viz., M/s NCCL. Learned counsel would argue that the nature of their service would not change because they are a sub-contractor. The exemption would apply whether the service is rendered directly by the main contractor or by sub-contractor as long as the building ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered as a service rendered to the client and not to the main contractor and correspondingly any exemption that would be applicable to such service to the client would also apply to sub-contractor. 5. Countering these submissions, the learned departmental representative argues that billing by the appellant was to M/s NCCL and not to IIT, Kharagpur which establishes that the appellant had rendered the services to M/s NCCL who were not covered by the exemption under Sec.102 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the exemption would not be applicable to the appellant. He would submit that the main contractor M/s NCCL could have applied for refund under Sec.102 but have not done so. Because the main contractor had filed to apply ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation for refund has been filed within the time stipulated in the section. I do not agree with the contention of the first appellate authority that merely because the services were rendered through main contractor and the bills were raised in the name of the main contractor the nature of the service would automatically become one of the services to the main contractor and not to IIT, Kharagpur. I have gone through the work order which shows clearly that a work given by the main contractor to the appellant was in relation to a construction at IIT Kharagpur Research Park. Although the CBEC circular (supra) cited by the learned counsel is in a different context, the logic applies to other cases as well. As long as the service is rendered to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
