TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor-Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., have discharged the service tax liability, whether the appellant is liable again on the same amount of turnover? Held that: - the facts of this case are squarely covered by the ruling in BCC Developers and Promoters Private Ltd. [2017 (9) TMI 156 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that If the Service Tax has already been paid by the principal, then the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nover. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is a proprietorship firm, is registered with the Service Tax/Central Excise Department. During the period 2009 - 10 to 2012 - 13, the appellant was allotted work as a subcontractor by M/s Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., (PCTL for short) for the services under maintenance and repairs and for commercial or industrial construction service at diffe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contention of the appellant and held that they are also/or again liable for payment of service tax of ₹ 84,01,151/-, on the gross receipts under the head CISC sub-contract. Further penalty was also imposed under Sections 77(1), 77(2) and penalty equal to tax under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. It is further stated that cum tax benefit was also not given in the impugned order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same cannot be demanded from the appellant. As per the clarification of the Board Circular dated 23rd August, 2007, as well as Circular dated 7th October, 1998, if the principal had not paid the service tax, then the same can be charged from the subcontractor. If the service tax has already been paid by the principal contractor, then the same cannot be demanded again from the subcontractor . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
