Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (9) TMI 1026

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ontractor - appellants are providing Site Formation services on Works Contract basis as sub-contractor to various clients - HELD THAT:- It is found that the Larger Bench in the case of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX VERSUS MELANGE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. [ 2019 (6) TMI 518 - CESTAT NEW DELHI-LB] have set aside the confirmed demand amount on account of time bar after holding that on merits the Appeal fails. Following the ratio, the confirmed demand in respect of the services provided by the Appellant as sub-contractor is set aside. Service tax on Site Formation services - HELD THAT:- In respect of Site Formation services provided by the Appellant and completed before the service was notified, it is held that no Service Tax is payable and hence, we .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rmation services on Works Contract basis as sub-contractor to various clients. They are also providing other services like Maintenance Repair services. On the ground that main contractor was paying the Service Tax the Appellants were not paying Service Tax on the services provided to the main contractor. SCN was issued demanding Service Tax for the services provided by the Appellant to various main contractors. Apart from that, demand was also made for the services rendered towards Management, Maintenance or Repair services (MMRS) for the roads maintained by them. After due process, the Adjudicating Authority dropped some of the demands and confirmed the demand under the following heads : - S.No. Disputed period Nature of Service Service Re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l plant (interest on delayed payment) 8,42,830 confirmed 2. Learned Counsel submits that in case of S.No.1 to 4, admittedly, there is no dispute that they have provided the services to the main contractor who has actually made the Service Tax payment for the entire contract. However, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Melange Developers Pvt Ltd has held that even sub-contractor is required to pay Service Tax independently. Therefore, as on date, this decision is against the Appellants on merits. However, he submits that the Larger Bench itself has held that since the matter was that of interpretation and different coordinate Benches of the CESTAT were taking different views and the matter had to come to the Larger Bench for res .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... under Excavator rent of Rs.26,506/-, short payment of Service Tax to the extent of Rs.7,29,833/- and short payment of interest of Rs.8,42,830/-, he submits that they are not contesting the issue. 6. He prays that the Appeal may be allowed considering the above facts. 7. In respect of the Appeal filed by the Accounts Manager of the Company (second Appellant), he submits that no specific role has been brought out towards any contravention by him. He also submits that Section 78A, which provides for personal penalty has been brought into effect w.e.f. 10.05.2013. Therefore, he prays that the penalty imposed may be set aside. 8. Learned AR reiterates the findings of the lower authority. He submits that there is no dispute that in respect of ser .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... avator rent of Rs.26,506/-, short payment of Rs.7,29,833/-, the Appellant is not contesting and accordingly, we hold that these amounts are payable along with interest. 14. In respect of interest of Rs.8,42,830/-, the Appellant is not contesting and is required to pay interest immediately. 15. Since almost the entire demand amount stands set aside on various counts, we do not find any justification for imposing penalty on the Appellant company. Accordingly, all the penalties imposed are set aside. 16. In respect of penalty imposed on the second Appellant, we find that he is only acting as an employee of the company. As we have observed above, major portion of the demand has also been set aside. Hence, we do not find justification in imposin .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates