TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntractor might have discharged the service tax liability. Therefore, this contention of the appellant is not tenable. As regards the exemption under Notification No. 16/2005, the said exemption is provided on "Commercial or Industrial Construction Services" undertaken in relation to construction of port or other port. From the work order dated 22/02/2006 given to the appellant by M/s. Punj Lloyd Ltd., the main contractor, it is seen that it was for supply of skilled man-power and the consideration was paid based on the skilled manpower supplied on a monthly rate. Thus, the appellant has rendered the services of supply of skilled man-power and not "commercial or industrial construction services". Therefore, the appellant is prima facie n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e inclusive of the value of services rendered by the appellant and therefore, the appellant as a sub-contractor is not liable to discharge service tax liability. The second contention raised by the Consultant is that vide Notification No. 16/2005-ST dated 07/06/2005, the services rendered in relation to construction of port or other port is exempt and the appellant is entitled for the said exemption. Accordingly, he pleads that stay be granted. 3. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue submits that as far as the liability of sub-contractor to pay service tax, the issue has already been decided in favour of Revenue and against the appellant by this Tribunal in the case of Sunil Hi-Tech Engineers Ltd. vide order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant is not tenable. As regards the exemption under Notification No. 16/2005, the said exemption is provided on Commercial or Industrial Construction Services undertaken in relation to construction of port or other port. From the work order dated 22/02/2006 given to the appellant by M/s. Punj Lloyd Ltd., the main contractor, it is seen that it was for supply of skilled man-power and the consideration was paid based on the skilled manpower supplied on a monthly rate. Thus, the appellant has rendered the services of supply of skilled man-power and not commercial or industrial construction services . Therefore, the appellant is prima facie not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 16/2005. Thus, the appellant has not made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
