New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Sachin Construction Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Kolhapur

Sub-contract - taxability in hands of sub-contractor - penalty - the main submission of the appellant is that they being a sub-contractor to the main contractor, they are not liable to pay service tax - Held that: - the main contractor are provider of construction service whereas the appellant is providing an independent service of excavation for which they are the main service provider and hence, they are not entitled for the benefit as a sub-contractor - the service provided by the appellant c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sed u/s 78 is not legal and proper - penalty imposed u/s 78 invoking the provisions of Section 80 of the FA, 1994. - Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - ST/89111/2013 - A/88132/17/STB - Dated:- 28-6-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri J N Somaiya, Advocate for the appellant Shri M P Damle, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair The appellant are engaged in providing the service of 'site formati .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

6,370/- was made along with interest and penalties. The show-cause notice was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner, whereby the demand was reduced to 6,21,493/- and 4,01,798/- was confirmed and also imposed penalties under section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Being aggrieved by the order-in-original the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) in order-in-appeal No. reduced the demand from ₹ 6,21,497/- to ₹ 5,27,493/- and set aside the demand of ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Udyog, M/s Eagle Construction and M/s Shivprasad Construction who were legally liable to pay the service tax on overall work of constructions. Therefore, the service tax liability on the present appellant is double taxation. He submits that they have paid an amount of interest 1.17 lakhs but the same was not appropriated. The cum-tax benefit was not extended. As regards the penalty, he submits that there is no mala fide intention on the part of the appellant. He submits that, initially the deman .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion of fact on the part of the appellant. 4. He further submits that while computing the demand of ₹ 5,27,493/- an amount of ₹ 158/- was wrongly confirmed and the cum-duty benefit was not extended; that after considering both, the demand stand reduced to ₹ 96,163/- for which he submitted a calculation chart. The appellant have admittedly paid the entire amount of service tax along with interest before issuance of show cause notice. For this reason also penalty under Section 78 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-Del.) 5. On the other hand Shri M.P. Damle, Learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) reiterates the finding of the impugned order, He further submits that the appellant has provided services of excavation which is an independent service and cannot be considered as a subcontractor service in connection with the construction service. Therefore, the benefit of sub-contractor's service being not chargeable to service tax is not available to them. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d by a sub-contractor on behalf of the main contractor and the main contractor discharges the service tax liability on the entire service of construction. In the present case, the main contractor are provider of construction service whereas the appellant is providing an independent service of excavation for which they are the main service provider and hence, they are not entitled for the benefit as a sub-contractor. Therefore, we are of the view that the service provided by the appellant chargea .....

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