TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f receipt of the payments. Held that:- SAIL made some of the payments directly to the sub contractor as per the High Court’s order but such payments were made obviously on behalf of the appellant. It was for this reason that the sub-contractors did not ask the appellant to make payments for services rendered (as per sub-contracts between them and the appellant) for which they directly got payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Respondent : Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocate ORDER PER R.K. SINGH: Appeal is filed against order in original dated 16.1.2009 in terms of which service tax demand of ₹ 3,83,53,072/-, education cess of ₹ 7,67,062/- and secondary and higher education cess of ₹ 3,83,531/- was confirmed along with interest of ₹ 23,93,889/- 2. The appellant is only contestin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble High Court and that no interest is recoverable from the appellant in such a situation because it (appellant) did not receive the amount from SAIL and the interest is chargeable with reference to the date of receipt of the payments. The appellant stressed on the meaning of word receive to stress that it did not receive those payments which were directly made by SAIL to the sub-contractors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to make payments for services rendered (as per sub-contracts between them and the appellant) for which they directly got payments from SAIL and the appellant also did not ask SAIL to pay it for the services rendered as per its contracts with SAIL for which SAIL directly paid to the sub-contractors. We have seen a representative order of the High Court in respect of one of sub-contractors kept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
