9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed on them under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant No.2 are sub-contractors of the applicant No.1 and have taken various activities of fabrication, installation and commissioning of various projects awarded to the applicant No.1. The applicant No.1 has awarded certain contracts to applicant No.2. In some of the contracts, the service tax element was shown separately and in some of the contracts the service tax liability is shown is mentioned as 0 or may be inclusive of service tax. In some contracts service tax liability was shown separately, based on that the applicant No.2 raising the bill accordingly and paying the service tax. But whereas the service tax element shown in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits that the applicant No.2 has paid a sum of Rs. 64,40,263/- along with interest of Rs. 2,65,786/- and the same may be considered as sufficient for entertaining their appeal. Therefore, he pleaded that the pre-deposit may be granted. 4. Shri Shailesh P. Seth, ld. counsel for the applicant No.1 submits that in this case has penalty has been imposed on the applicant No.1 being a service recipient. Moreover, the penalty has been imposed considering that the applicant was the adviser to the applicant No.2 to advise not to pay the service tax. In fact it is the liability of applicant No.2 to pay the service tax correctly and whereas in the works contract, if the service tax element is shown as 0, in those cases, service tax liability is to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Pawan Engg. Works, vide Stay Order No.SO/ST/51926/2014, dated 25.07.2014, the Tribunal has directed the applicants to make the full pre-deposit as demanded in the adjudication order for entertaining the appeal. The said order has been confirmed by the Honble High Court of Chhattisgarh in Tax Appeal No.21/2014, dated 19.06.2014. Therefore, the applicants be put to terms for entertaining the appeals. 6. Heard the parties. 7. In these cases, the demand of service tax has been confirmed against the applicant No.2 under the category of ECIS. On perusal of some of the works orders, we find that main work assigned as the work orders is fabrication and in the case of Neo Structo Constructions Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal has held that for the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
