9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t this Tribunal categorically observed that in de-novo adjudication, matter on the issue of limitation and also on the liability of service tax on sub contractor to be decided considering the judgments cited therein. On perusal of the order, it is found that the Adjudicating Authority has not touched upon any of the judgments cited by the appellant and recorded by the Tribunal in the order dated 22.09.2010, therefore, the adjudicating authority gravely erred in not following the directions of the Tribunal and thus seriously violated the principle of natural justice. Entire matter needs to re-considered following the directions given by this Tribunal in the order dated 22.09.2010 - impugned order set aside - appeal allowed by way of remand.< ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s invoiced to main contractor but only limited to such extent where main contractor had actually paid the service tax. The demand in respect of charges raised on main contractor stands confirmed where the main contractor did not pay service tax. He placed reliance on the following judgments and various trade notices :- Trade Notice No. 53 CE (Service Tax) /97 New Delhi dated 04.07.97 Trade Notice No. 7/1997-ST dated 04.07.1997, Mumbai Commissionerate-I Trade Notice No. 7/98-ST dated 13.10.1998, Mumbai Commissionerate Trade Notice No. 1/96-ST dated 31.10.1996, Mumbai Commissionerate Ministry's Letter F No. B-II/I/2000-Tru, dated 09.07.2001 M.F (D/R) Circular No. 23/3/97/ST dated 13.10.97 Trade Notice No. 39-CE (Service Tax)/97 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng with Imposition of penalties on the ground that they have provided security services without discharging the tax liabilities during the period 01.10.1999 to 31.3.2000. 2. Admittedly the appellant is registered with the service tax authorities as security service providers and was paying service tax after filing the ST-3-returns from time to time. During the period. In question they had provided security personnel to M / s Reliance Group Support Services Pvt. Limited (RGSS for short), who were the main contractor for providing security services to their customers. 3. The appellant's main contention is that they were not the security service provider in such cases and was only sub-contractor supplying Security personnel to RGSS. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of limitation and also on the liability of service tax on sub - contractor to be decided considering the judgments cited therein. On perusal of the order, we find that the Adjudicating Authority has not touched upon any of the judgments cited by the appellant and recorded by the Tribunal in the order dated 22.09.2010, therefore, the adjudicating authority gravely erred in not following the directions of the Tribunal and thus seriously violated the principle of natural justice. 5. In this position, we are of the view that entire matter needs to re-considered following the directions given by this Tribunal in the order dated 22.09.2010. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority. ( Prono ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
