TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Held that: - during the material time, the clarification issued by the Board on 07/10/1998 regarding the non-liability of the sub-contractor rendering same type of service as the main contractor, is prevailing and followed by the field formations. It is only in the master circular issued on 23/08/2007, the position was clarified with a contrary view - without going into the merits of the case, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice to main contractor M/s ABB Ltd. and also render service of site formation and clearance etc. to M/s Jindal Power Ltd. The dispute in the present case is restricted to their activity as sub-contractor to M/s ABB Ltd. The lower Authorities confirmed the service tax liability of ₹ 1,69,052/- and also imposed various penalties on the appellant. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to evade payment of service tax. As such, the penalties also are not liable to be imposed. 3. The learned AR submitted that the Department conducted verification with the appellant as well as with the main contractor. No details were forthcoming regarding payment of service tax by the main contractor. Even the affidavit now submitted by the appellant did not categorically state that the main co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the master circular issued on 23/08/2007, the position was clarified with a contrary view. As such, without going into the merits of the case, it is apparent that in such situation of interpretation of the statutory provision, there could be no basis for invoking suppression, fraudulent intend etc. on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, we find the demand issued on 10/03/2010 in respect of se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
