9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the appellant is a service provider and they are required to pay service tax on the services rendered by them as clarified by CBEC Circular No.96/7/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007, wherein it has been clarified that for the services rendered by the sub-contractor, the sub-contractor is required to pay service tax - the appellant is liable to pay service tax as demanded. Whether the extended period of limitation in the facts and circumstances is applicable or not? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, without investigation, it could have been revealed that whether the appellants are providing man power services to the main contractor or not nor after investigation, it came to the notice to the Department that the appellant is pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Being aggrieved with the said order, the appellant is before us. Service Tax Appeal No. 75791 of 2015 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a sub-contractor of M/s Tarapore & Company and provided manpower services and the principal contractor has paid the service tax. 3.1 A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant in May, 2013 demanding service tax for the period April, 2010 to December, 2011 by invoking extended period of limitation and by way of adjudication, a demand of Service Tax was confirmed and a penalty of Rs.3,51,672/- was imposed under Section 78 of the Act and a penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed under Section 77 (2) of the Act. 3.2 Being aggrieved with the said order, the appellant is before us. Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed. 7. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. 8. We find that the two issues are involved herein, which are as under : Issue (a) : Whether in case the main contractor has paid the service tax, the appellants are required to pay service tax on the services rendered by the appellants being sub-contractor, or not ? Issue (b) : Whether the extended period of limitation in the facts and circumstances is applicable or not ? Issue (a) : Whether in case the main contractor has paid the service tax, the appellants are required to pay service tax on the services rendered by the appellants being sub-contractor, or not? Admittedly, the appellant is a service provider and they are required to pay service tax on the services r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of case in hand. 12. Further, the ld.Consultant has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune III Vs. Akruti Projects reported in 2015 (37) STR 348 (Tri.-Mumbai). We find that in the said case, the period is July, 2006 to March, 2007, which is well before in the case of S.V.Engg. Construction Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Guntur reported in 2015 (40) STR 780 (Tri.-Bang.). We find that in both the cases, the period involved is prior to the clarification given by the Department by way of CBEC Circular No.96/7/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007. Therefore, the facts in hand are not similar to the case relied upon by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
