TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The service agreement entered into between the appellant and the company, it is clear that the appellant were to provide necessary services to products as assigned/authorised by coompany and protect the interest and reputation of company - The appellant have produced a certificate issued by company dated 14-8-2009 claiming that service tax liability on the service provided by the appellant having been included in the service liability discharged by them - The said certificate was not even before the lower adjudicating authority - Remanded to the lower adjudicating authority for limited purpose to verify the certificate and pass necessary order. - ST/329/2009 - A/109/2011-WZB/C-IV(SMB) - Dated:- 4-1-2011 - Shri S.K. Gaule, JJ REPRES ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reement entered into between them and XMC which reads thus : provide and render necessary services to products as assigned/authorized by XMC and protect the interest and reputation of XMC . They have also produced a certificate dated 14-8-2008 from XMC certifying that the services provided by the appellant is in the nature of sub-contract. The contention of the appellant is that the service tax has already been paid by XMC and the period involved in this case is prior to 23-8-2007, the date on which the liability to pay service tax was fixed on sub-contractors. The learned counsel also draws attention to para 5 of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) order which reads thus : On going through the records it was observed that the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to be the sole contractor and not a sub-contractor and hence liable for payment of service tax. The learned JDR further relies on the clarification issued by the CBEC wherein it has been clarified that the sub-contractor were liable to pay service tax from the date the circular was issued, i.e. 23-8-2007. 6. In rejoinder, the learned counsel has contended that the above decision is distinguishable and draws our attention to para 7 of the Tribunal s order where it is held that the appellants were the sole contractor and not sub-contractor and in that case the appellant was responsible for them to HAL and there is no contract and sub-contract. Therefore, the said decision is distinguishable and not applicable to the facts and circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
