9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant. 2. We have heard Shri Himanshu Khemuka, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Rajeev Kapoor, learned authorized representative appearing for the revenue and perused the records. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant is registered with the central excise department for providing Works Contract Services. The officers of the Preventive Branch of the Jabalpur Commissionerate gathered information that the appellant had provided Works Contract Services to M/s Jabalpur Garment & Fashion Design Cluster Association, Jabalpur [service recipient], but had not paid service tax on the services so rendered. Letters dated 08.03.2016. 05.04.2016 and 09.05.2016 and subsequently summons dated 10.06.2016, 29.06.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice recipient paid its 50% of the service tax but the appellant had not paid its share of 50% of the service tax. During the period 2012-2013 to 2015-2016 not only had the appellant not paid the service tax due but it had also not filed any service tax returns. 5. After investigation, a show cause notice dated 26.12.2016 was issued to the appellant demanding service tax amounting to Rs. 7,57,520/- (including cesses) under the proviso to section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 [the Finance Act] for the period 2012-2013, being the 50% of the service tax payable by the appellant which it had not paid. Interest was demanded under section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and penalties were proposed under section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he service provider has to pay the service tax. If a notification is issued shifting fully or partly the responsibility of paying service tax to the service recipient, the service recipient is responsible to pay the service tax to that extent. 10. The undisputed legal position is that in respect of the services rendered by the appellant 50% of the service tax had to be paid by the service recipient, which it did. The appellant, as service provider, was required to pay the remaining 50% of the service tax, which it had not. If service tax is paid on a service which is an input service for a taxable service rendered or a dutiable good manufactured the service recipient or manufacturer can take CENVAT credit of the service tax paid. It does n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
