9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reliance for use of their SBM and reliance has admittedly paid the service tax. The appellant have simply raised the invoice for the reimbursement of the actual amount paid by them to the reliance. Therefore, the appellant is not the service provider whereas they are the service recipient and therefore, they are not liable to pay service tax. Secondly, the demand of service tax on service which has already suffered the service tax is demanded twice on the same service which is not permissible. Thirdly, though the appellant have issued the invoices initially but the same were reversed subsequently, as contract with OPAL was amended retrospectively and consequently, the appellant did not receive any consideration for these so called service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that firstly, the actual service provider is reliance SBM at Hazira and reliance have admittedly discharged the service tax, therefore, on the same activity, service tax cannot be demanded from appellant. He further submits that even though, the appellant have raised the invoices but the same were reversed as per the contract with OPAL which was amended with retrospectively and the appellant admittedly did not receive any consideration for these so called services. For this reason also no service tax demand can be made. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- M/S. ATC TIRES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. AND CENTRAL EXCISE, MADURAI-2023 (8) TMI 659 CESTAT CH ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their SBM and reliance has admittedly paid the service tax. The appellant have simply raised the invoice for the reimbursement of the actual amount paid by them to the reliance. Therefore, the appellant is not the service provider whereas they are the service recipient and therefore, they are not liable to pay service tax. Secondly, the demand of service tax on service which has already suffered the service tax is demanded twice on the same service which is not permissible. Thirdly, though the appellant have issued the invoices initially but the same were reversed subsequently, as contract with OPAL was amended retrospectively and consequently, the appellant did not receive any consideration for these so called services. In this position, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
