TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of decisions by various Tribunal Benches, taking opposing views on the same issue, we are of the view that the matter needs to be considered by a Larger Bench - Registry is therefore directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble President for constituting Larger Bench. - S.T. Appeal No. 50399 of 2014 - Interim Order No. 16/2018 - Dated:- 23-3-2018 - Mr. S. K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) and Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Sh. R. K. Manjhi, AR for the Revenue Sh. A. K. Batra, CA and Ms. Vibha Narang, Advocate for the respondent-assessee ORDER Per: S. K. Mohanty: The appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Original No. 125/2013 dated 27.09.2013. The respondent-assessee is engaged in the cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating Authority has wrongly placed reliance on the Circular No. 96/7/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007 and has observed that the services provided by sub-contractors were essentially not taxable. He argued that this circular categorically states that services provided by a sub-contractor were liable to Service tax. The relevant portion of the circular is reproduced below: A sub contractor is essentially a taxable service provider. The fact that services provided by such sub contractors are used by the main service provider for completion of his work does not in any way alter the fact of provision of taxable service by the sub contractor. Service provided by sub-contractor is in nature of input service tax is therefore, leviable on any ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .) (g) Hargovind Electric Decorators vs. CCE, Jaipur-I 2016 (43) STR 619 (Tri. Del.) (h) Engineers India Technical Services vs. CCE CE, Raipur 2014 (34) STR 358 (Tri. Del.) (i) Safe Sure Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, Mumbai 2012 (28) STR 30 (Tri. Mum.) (j) Sew Construction Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur 2011 (22) STR 666 (Tri. Del.) (k) Vijay Sharma Co. vs. CCE, Chandigarh 2010 (4) TMI 570-CESTAT, New Delhi (l) Urvi Construction vs. CST, Ahmedabad 2010 (17) STR 302 (Tri. Ahmd.) 4. Ld. Consultant representing the respondent-assessee justified the impugned order and submitted the following. (i) He referred to para 18 of the impugned order in which the Adjudicating Authority has observed that until the issue of Circular ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T. Murukan S/o Thampu Pillai, Chenambam Kuzhiyil, PO Chatmangalam, Kozhikode vs. Commissioner (Appeals-I) 2017-TIOL-497-HC-Kerala-ST 5. Heard both sides and perused the record. 6. The dispute in the present case is regarding the liability for payment of Service tax, on the part of the sub-contractor who has executed certain works contracts as a sub-contractor for the main contractor. It is on record that on the activities provided as sub-contractor to the main contractor, the main contractor has already discharged Service tax liability. The Adjudicating Authority has referred to the Circular No. 96/07/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007 and dropped the demand for Service tax by observing that if the assessee is to pay tax on the gross amount rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
