9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her the entire period involved in the present case is prior to 01/06/2007. Therefore the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Ltd. is squarely applicable in the present case. Service tax liability on a sub-contractor - HELD THAT:- Where the main contractor pays the service tax, we find that in the present case, the appellant in certain cases has acted as a sub-contractor to the main contractor and the main contractor has paid the service tax and in view of the various decisions, it is held that the sub-contractor is not liable to pay service tax where the main contractor had paid the service tax. Extended period of limitation - second SCN - HELD THAT:- For the subsequent show-cause notice, there cannot be any suppress ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng under 'commercial or industrial construction service' from 10/09/2004 and 'construction of complex service' from 16/06/2005 and therefore a show-cause notice dt. 27/09/2007 was issued for the period from 10/09/2004 to 30/11/2005 and another show-cause notice dt. 21/04/2008 for the period 01/12/2005 to 31/03/2007 were issued and after considering the submissions of the appellant, service tax along with interest and penalties were confirmed. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4.1. Learned consultant for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that the appellants were under a belief that they are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services / construction of complex service and cannot be taxed. He further submitted that for the projects undertaken by the appellant as a sub-contract, they are not liable for the service tax since the main contractor has paid service tax. He also referred to Circular No.96/2007 dt. 23/08/2007 wherein it was clarified that the subcontractor will liable to service tax and the principal contractor shall avail the service tax paid; but the same is applicable only from 23/08/2007 and not for the earlier period whereas in the present case, the period involved is prior to that circular and therefore the said circular is not applicable in the present case. For this submission, he relied upon the following case laws:- i. OIKOS Vs. CCE, Bangal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6/2007. Further we find that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by Apex Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Ltd. cited supra. Further we find that the entire period involved in the present case is prior to 01/06/2007. Therefore the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Ltd. is squarely applicable in the present case. Further with regard to service tax liability on a sub-contractor, where the main contractor pays the service tax, we find that in the present case, the appellant in certain cases has acted as a sub-contractor to the main contractor and the main contractor has paid the service tax and in view of the various decisions cited supra, it is held that the sub-contractor is not liable to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
