9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discharged by the main contractor - demand upheld. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- If any assessee is of the belief that being sub-contractor they are not liable to pay service tax, in the light of amendment in Circular in 2005, the assessee should have approached the department and make the position clear regarding their bonafide belief. But in the present case, the appellant did not approach the department regarding their bonafide belief nor they obtained the registration. Therefore, when the Board issued amendment in 2005, it cannot be said that the appellant entertained bonafide belief correctly. In the case of Max Tech Oil Gas Services Pvt. Limited [ 2016 (10) TMI 833 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ], on the identical issue of taxability on sub-cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Tribunal in the case of CST, New Delhi vs. Melange Developers Pvt. Limited - 2019-TIOL-1684-CESTAT-DEL-LB. However, he submits that the entire demand is time-barred as the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period. He submits that there is no malafide on the part of the appellant. The appellant had not paid service tax as there was confusion that whether the sub-contractor is liable to pay service tax when the entire service tax was paid by the main contractor. On this issue there were conflicting judgments and finally the issue was settled by the Larger Bench in the case of Melange Developers Pvt. Limited (supra). Therefore, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant suppressed the facts or had malafide inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. Mahalaxmi Infracontract Limited. (o) Order No. A/12878/2017 dated 06.10.2017 passed by the Hon'ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad in case of M/s. SAI Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. 3. Shri Gobind Jha, Ld. Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that the confusion on the issue that whether the sub-contractor is liable to pay service tax or otherwise has arisen only due to issuance of Board Circular in the year 2002, clarifying that when the main contractor discharged the service tax liability, sub-contractor need not to pay service tax. Subsequently, the Board Circular was modified in the year 2005 according to which the assessee, even though acted as sub-contractor, requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .). 4. Heard both sides and perused the record. We find that there is no dispute on the taxability as has been held by the Larger Bench that the subcontractor is independently liable to pay service tax even though service tax liability has been discharged by the main contractor. Therefore, in the present case, demand on merit is clearly sustainable. As regards the limitation argued by the ld. Counsel, we find that the confusion arose due to Board Circular issued in 2002 wherein the Board has clarified that in case of sub-contractor, the service tax is not payable by sub-contractor if service tax is discharged by the main contractor. However, the Circular was amended in 2005 and thereafter the issue became clear that the sub-contractor was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
