TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olved in various activities taxable under various tax entries. The details are not before us. As such, it will not be possible to come to a conclusion that the appellant has only executed the said contract work of a main contract of the same tax entry given to the system integrators. Time limitation - Held that: - no tax is paid on the present disputed activity - Extended period demand is sustainable. Penalty - invocation of section 80 - Held that: - Section 80 provides for waiver of penalty imposed under Section 78, if the appellants can show reasonable cause. The appellants have pleaded that Wipro has given a certificate of payment of service tax on the whole consideration which is inclusive of consideration paid to the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivity to various customers of such System Integrators. The Revenue entertained a view that the consideration received by the appellant for such activities are liable to be taxed under the category of Management, Maintenance or Repair services. The period of dispute is from July 2004 to March 2008. The proceedings initiated against the appellants to demand and recover service tax resulted in the impugned order. The original authority confirmed the service tax liability of ₹ 2,14,65,932/- and also imposed penalty of equivalent amount under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted on the following lines:- a) They are not involved in managing and maintaining any such circuits. These ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e system integrators to whom they have provided service have paid service tax on their overall activities which included the consideration now being taxed at the hands of the appellants, is not relevant to decide the service tax liability of the appellants. The appellants are registered with the department and were discharging service tax on some of their activities like maintenance of modem etc. under the category of Management, Maintenance or Repair service. As such they cannot take a plea of bonafideness for non-payment of service tax on certain other considerations which are now disputed. 6. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 7.1 On the merits of the case, we have perused he sample work order dated 21.06.2000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the work of the system integrators. The present work order given to the appellants cannot be considered as a subcontract of such contract given to the main system integrators. As already noted, the system integrators are involved in various activities taxable under various tax entries. The details are not before us. As such, it will not be possible to come to a conclusion that the appellant has only executed the said contract work of a main contract of the same tax entry given to the system integrators. In any case, the legal position of tax liability has to be decided based on the statutory entries for tax levy and not based on quantity including the consideration which is now been subject of dispute. This aspect is well covered by the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
