GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (5) TMI 785 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (5) TMI 785 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2016 (42) S.T.R. 783 (Tri. - Del.) - Demand of interest - Appellant contended that no interest is recoverable in such a situation where it did not receive the amount from SAIL as SAIL directly made the payments to the sub-contractors and the interest is chargeable with reference to the date of receipt of the payments. - Held that:- SAIL made some of the payments directly to the sub contractor as per the High Courtís order but such payments were made obvi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y SAIL by making direct payments to sub-contractors. So, the appellant was deemed to have received those payments and therefore was liable to pay interest in case service tax relating to such payments was paid later than the due date. - Decided against the appellant - Appeal No. ST/576/2009-CU(DB) with CO/259/2009 - Final Order No. 50069/2016 - Dated:- 1-1-2016 - MR. JUSTICE G. RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT AND MR. R.K. SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Rakesh Sinha, Advocate And Shri Pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion cess and secondary and higher education cess. 3. The facts briefly, stated are, that the appellant entered into contracts with M/s Steel Authority of India (SAIL). It also entered into sub-contracts with certain sub-contractors to provide part of the services required to be provided as per its contracts with SAIL. In compliance of orders the Hon ble High Court, SAIL made payments to sub contractor directly. The appellant has contended that it timely paid service tax on the payments received .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ress that it did not receive those payments which were directly made by SAIL to the sub-contractors. 4. We have considered the contention of the appellant. It is evident that the services were rendered to SAIL as per the contracts entered into by the appellant with SAIL (Bhilai Steel plant). The appellant on its part entered into sub contracts with certain sub contractors which provided part of the services required to be rendered as per the appellant s contracts with SAIL. Thus as far as the re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version