9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order. Service Tax Appeal No. 75790 of 2015 2. 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. 2.1 A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant on 24.09.2013 demanding service tax for the period April, 2008 to March, 2012. 2.2 The matter was adjudicated. The demand of service tax was confirmed along with interest and a penalty of Rs.6,44,725/- was imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 and a penalty of Rs.10,000/- was also imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.3 Being aggrieved with the said order, the appellant is before us. Service Tax Appeal No. 75791 of 2015 3. The facts o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, the demands are not sustainable against the appellants as the appellants did not suppress any facts from the Department. He further submits that as the main contractor has paid the service tax. In that circumstances, it is a situation of revenue neutrality. Therefore, no demands are sustainable. 6. On the other hand, the ld.A.R. for the Revenue supported the impugned order and submits that as per Circular No.96/7/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007, it has been clarified that the contractor is required to pay service tax for the services provided by the sub-contractor to main contractor. Therefore, the demands are rightly confirmed. 7. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. 8. We find that the two issues are involved herein, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a bonafide act on the part of the appellants, the extended period of limitation has rightly invoked. 11. The appellant has also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Blackstone Polymers Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur II reported in 2014 (301) ELT 657 (Tri.-Del.) to say that the extended period of limitation is not invokable. In that case, the facts are not applicable to the facts and circumstances in this case. As in that case, the buyers have disclosed in their Books of Accounts and Balance Sheet, the receipt of compensation. In this case, it is not the case of the appellant. Therefore, the facts are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of case in hand. 12. Further, the ld.Consultant has relied on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
