9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l adjudicating authority holding that the sub-contractor is not liable to pay the Service Tax when the main contractor has paid the said Service Tax. The facts of the case are sufficient to hold that there was no clarity about the individual liability of the sub contractor towards the payment of service tax. Even the Department was not clear on the interpretation of the circulars issued, judgements made and practice followed on sub contractors liability. As such in the case where the main contractor had discharged the Service Tax on entire value of service. These findings are sufficient for me to hold that there cannot be any intentional conduct of the appellant to not to pay the service tax during 2013-14. Alleging fraud mis-statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receipts amounting to ₹ 6,322,147/- during the period of 2013-14. Accordingly vide Show Cause Notice No. 4611 dated 12.10.2018 aforesaid amount of Service Tax was proposed to be recovered from the appellant along with the interest and proportionate penalties. The said proposal was rejected by the Original Adjudication Authority vide the order No. 97/2019-20 dated 11.3.2020 holding that the law does not discriminate between the contractor and sub contractor in so far as the Service Tax liability is concerned. The appeal against this order as filed by the Department has been allowed vide Order-in-Appeal No. 76/20-21 dated 18.2.2021 holding that the receiver has provided the work contract service to M/s. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ub contractor during the period in dispute. Said contravention / confusion has been settled by the decision of Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Melange Developer Pvt. Ltd. reported as [2020 33 GSTL 116 (Tri-LB)] making sub contractor individually liable for the payment. In the present case that there is non payment by the appellant as sub contractor but the impugned Service Tax liability stand already discharged and the amount received already stand deposited with the Government by the main contractor. It is therefore submitted that the demand is alleged to have been wrongly invoked by extending period of limitation. Order under challenge is accordingly prayed to be set aside. The appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CE Delhi 2015 (51) GSTL 636]; 3. Murari Lal Singhal vs CCE ST, Jaipur [2019 (25) GSTL 45 (Tri-Del)]; 4. Thadi Satya Ramalinga Reddy vs. CCE Visakapatnam II [2017 (4) GSTL 421] 6. I also observe that it was the decision of Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Melange Developer Pvt. Ltd. reported as [2020 33 GSTL 116 (Tri-LB)] that the aforesaid decisions have been altered to the fact that the sub contractor being an individual service provider that to the main contractor but is liable to discharge the Service Tax liability to the extent of amount of service being provided by him to the main contractor. All the above decisions and the prevalent contradiction stand cleared by final judgement of Larger Bench. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
