9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 807X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord that the main contractor has paid Service Tax on the entire bill amount. However, it is observed that the Board has issued the Circular dated 23.08.2007 wherein it has been clarified that a sub-contractor is liable to pay Service Tax separately even if the main contractor discharges Service Tax on the entire amount. Accordingly, the appellant is liable to pay Service Tax on the services rendered by them as a sub-contractor. Invocation of the extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant cannot be faulted for not paying Service Tax for the period prior to the issue of the clarification by the Board. Further, the entire issue was within the knowledge of the Department and there is no evidence brought on record to establish sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (Appeals) has upheld the demands confirmed in the Order-in-Original No.28/ADC/ST/Kol/2013-14 dated 05.02.2014. 2. The facts of the case are that proceedings were initiated against the appellant vide Show Cause Notice dated 16.08.2012 alleging that they had not paid Service Tax to the tune of Rs.20,75,933/- (including cess) for the period from April 2006 to March 2011 under the category of Consulting Engineer Service . The appellant has rendered the services of supervision, coordination and monitoring in respect of engineering and technical works under the Yamuna Action Plan Project, as a part of agreement between National River Conservation Directorate, Ministry of Environment Forests, Government of India and M/s. Tokyo Engineer Consult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmits that the Circular No. 96/7/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007 issued by the Board categorically clarifies that a sub-contractor is required to pay Service Tax even if the main contractor has duly deposited Service Tax on the entire amount. Accordingly, he submits that the appellant is liable to pay Service Tax, as a sub-contractor. As there was no ambiguity regarding the liability of payment of service tax by the sub-contractor, he supports the impugned order confirming the demand by invoking extended period. 4.1. In case invocation of extended period of limitation is not sustained, the demand for the normal period is liable to be confirmed. The Ld. Departmental Representative submits that Section 73 of the Finance Act has been amended vide Fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2007 wherein it has been clarified that a sub-contractor is liable to pay Service Tax separately even if the main contractor discharges Service Tax on the entire amount. Accordingly, I hold that the appellant is liable to pay Service Tax on the services rendered by them as a sub-contractor. 7. Regarding the invocation of the extended period of limitation, I find that the demand in the present case has been raised for the period from April 2006 to March 2011 vide the Show Cause Notice issued on 16.08.2012 by invoking the extended period of limitation. I find that there were contradictory decisions during the relevant period about the liability of a sub-contractor to pay Service Tax when the main contractor discharges Service Tax on the full ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d period of limitation includes the demand raised for the normal period within it. 8.1. In this regard, the appellant submits that the Show Cause Notice was issued for the period from April 2006 to March 2011 and during this period, the demand for the normal period of limitation can be issued for a period of one year only. Accordingly, the appellant has submitted that the Show Cause Notice for the normal period from October 2010 to March 2011 should have been issued on or before 25.04.2012; if the demand is not issued by 25.04.2012, then the demand itself is a dead demand, which cannot be revived by a subsequent amendment which was brought w.e.f. 28.05.2012.In support of this contention, the appellant relied on the decision of the Hon ble S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... voked retrospectively to raise the demand for the normal period of limitation of eighteen months available on the date of issue of the said demand. 9.3. Further, I note that Circular No. 606/43/2001-CX dated 04.12.2001 has clarified regarding retrospective validation by the Finance Act, 2000 of action taken under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as under: - The matter was also referred to Additional Solicitor General of India in April, 2001 in a related context who bas opined that after the amendment to Section 11A by the Finance Act, 2000, demands could be raised for a period of one year prior to the date of show cause notice (Ref. Answer to query No. 1). A copy of ASG's opinion has already been sent to you vide Circular No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
