TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, therefore, Service Tax is leviable on any taxable service provided, whether or not the services are provided by a person in his capacity as a sub-contractor and whether or not such services are used as input service. In the present case, the period involved is 2002-2003 i.e prior to the issue of the circular. In number of decisions in the case of URVI CONSTRUCTION VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD [ 2009 (10) TMI 97 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] , FOTO FLASH VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX [ 2007 (10) TMI 133 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] and SYNERGY AUDIO VISUAL WORKSHOP P. LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF ST, BANGALORE [ 2008 (1) TMI 188 - CESTAT BANGALORE] it has been held that once the main contractor has discharged the Service Tax liabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvices Pvt. Ltd. As per the Appellant s contention that being main contractor M/s Reliance Group Security Services Pvt. Ltd., Jamnagar has paid the Service tax, the Appellant as a sub-contractor would not be liable for service tax payments. After detailed verification and analysis of the activities, statements and records of the Appellants, Show cause notice dated 10.05.2007 was issued for recovery of service tax amount of Rs. 51,41,907/- for the period April 2002 to December 2003 and imposition of penalties under Section 76 and 78 of the Act. In adjudication, Learned Commissioner vide Order-In-Original dated 28.09.2007 confirmed Service tax demand along with interest and penalties. Being aggrieved with the said order appellant filed appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .1997 (iii) Order/Instruction F.No. 341/43/96-TRU dated 31.10.1996 (iv) M.F (D/R) Circular No. 23/3/97/ST dated 13.10.97 2.2 He also placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Indfos Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex, Noida -2012(26)STR 129 (Tri. Delhi) (ii) BBR (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore III- 2006(4) STR 269 (Tri. Bang.) (iii) SEMAC Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service tax, Bangalore -2006(4)STR 475 (Tri Bang.) 2.3 He also argued that the subject SCN was issued on 10.05.2007 for the period April 2002 to December 2003 i.e after 3 years of the relevant date. The demand in present matter is Time barred. He placed reliance on the following Judgments: (i) M/s Shanti Construction Co. Vs. CCE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are used as input service . In the present case, the period involved is 2002-2003 i.e prior to the issue of the circular. We also find that in number of decisions in the case of Urvi Construction v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad - 2010 (17) S.T.R. 302 (Tri.-Ahmd), Foto Flash v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore - 2008 (9) S.T.R. 462 (Tri.-Bang.) and Synergy Audio Visual Workshop Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore - 2008 (10) S.T.R. 578 (Tri.-Bang.) it has been held that once the main contractor has discharged the ServiceTax liability on a value which includes service provided by the sub-contractor, then the demand for ServiceTax on sub-contractor is not sustainable in law. 4.2 We also find that the tribuna ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 23-8-2007 as well as dated 7-10-1998, if the principal had not paid the Service Tax then the same can be charged. If the Service Tax has already been paid by the principal, then the same cannot be demanded again. We are therefore of the view that on this particular issue once again the matter needs to be remanded to Adjudicating Authority for verification of payment particular of Principal i.e M/s Reliance Group Security Services Pvt. Ltd. In the present matter the facts on records is that on 11.07.2006 statement of Shri Kaustabh Bosh, representative of M/s Reliance Group Security Services Pvt. Ltd. was recorded by Service tax department, Jamnagar, wherein he stated that they have paid Service tax of Rs. 51,41,907/- with respect to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
