TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2. Shri Shiva Das, the learned Advocate, appeared for the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddy, the learned JDR, for the Revenue. 3. Heard both sides. The learned Advocate pointed out that the applicant of this petition was one of the appellants in respect of their above- mentioned Final Order issued by this Tribunal. As regards the appellants, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed two demands one to the tune of Rs41,69,972/- on the ground that the appellants were not entitled to claim deduction of the value of the goods and raw-materials provided by them to their customers, as the same was not shown in the bills/invoices issued at the time of providing the services and the second one amounting to Rs.31,04,826/- on the ground that the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which get the processing done by the lab are not liable to pay service tax as they are not rendering any service to the customers. He emphasizes the point that the service tax is liable to be paid when the services are rendered to the customers. In this case the appellants do not render service directly to the customers. The customers have approached various photographic In turn, those photographic studios have entrusted the work to the appellants. Therefore, he said that this principle has to be followed and relief should be given to the appellants. 5. The learned Departmental Representative made the point that even if they had rendered any service to the main photographers the appellants are liable to pay service tax. 6. The learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. We have clearly held in various decisions that when the taxable service is rendered by sub-contractor, he is not liable to pay service tax. Our decision is based on various circulars of the Board and also on the principle that Revenue cannot demand service tax twice on the same services more than once. If the main contractor discharges the service tax liability, there is no need for sub-contractor to pay the service tax. However it is for the Revenue to verify this fact and they should not expect the appellant to provide the evidence in this connection. In view of the above observations, we do not find any merit in the demand. We also note the fact that the entire demand is time barred. Therefore we set aside the demand amounting to Rs.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
