TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntractor they are not liable to pay service tax, in the light of amendment in Circular in 2005, the assessee should have approached the department and make the position clear regarding their bonafide belief. But in the present case, the appellant did not approach the department regarding their bonafide belief nor they obtained the registration. Therefore, when the Board issued amendment in 2005, it cannot be said that the appellant entertained bonafide belief correctly. In the case of Max Tech Oil Gas Services Pvt. Limited [ 2016 (10) TMI 833 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ], on the identical issue of taxability on sub-contractor, it was clearly held that extended period is invokable. Similarly, in the case of Sew Construction Limited [ 2010 (11) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor is liable to pay service tax as held by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of CST, New Delhi vs. Melange Developers Pvt. Limited 2019-TIOL-1684-CESTAT-DEL-LB. However, he submits that the entire demand is time-barred as the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period. He submits that there is no malafide on the part of the appellant. The appellant had not paid service tax as there was confusion that whether the sub-contractor is liable to pay service tax when the entire service tax was paid by the main contractor. On this issue there were conflicting judgments and finally the issue was settled by the Larger Bench in the case of Melange Developers Pvt. Limited (supra ). Therefore, in these circumstances, it cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Guntur - 2017(48) STR 165 (Tri. - Hyd.) (m) National Building Construction Corpn. Limited vs. CCE ST. Patna 2011 (23) STR 593 (Tri. -Kolkata) (n) Order No. A/11314/2013 dated 07.10.2013 passed by the Hon ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad in case of M/s. Mahalaxmi Infracontract Limited. (o) Order No. A/12878/2017 dated 06.10.2017 passed by the Hon ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad in case of M/s. SAI Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. 3. Shri Gobind Jha, Ld. Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He submits that the confusion on the issue that whether the sub-contractor is liable to pay service tax or otherwise has arisen only du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification No. 28/2010-ST dated. 22.06.2010 regarding Construction of Residential Complex service. (f) Max Tech Oil Gas Services Pvt. Limited vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi 2017 (52) STR 508 (Tri. Del.) (g) Krishna Engineering Works vs. CCE ST., Vadodara 2019 (22) GSTL 409 (Tri. Ahmd.) (h) Sew Construction Limited vs. CCE, Raipur 2011 (22) STR 666 (Tri. Del.). 4. Heard both sides and perused the record. We find that there is no dispute on the taxability as has been held by the Larger Bench that the subcontractor is independently liable to pay service tax even though service tax liability has been discharged by the main contractor. Therefore, in the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequent period particularly in the present case which is for the period 2007-08 and 2008- 09. We also find that in the case of Max Tech Oil Gas Services Pvt. Limited (supra), on the identical issue of taxability on sub-contractor, it was clearly held that extended period is invokable. Similarly, in the case of Sew Construction Limited (supra), the Tribunal has dealt with the liability to pay service tax by the sub-contractor and has clearly held that since registration was not sought, claim of bonafide belief cannot be accepted and demand for the extended period was maintained and penalty was also intact. 6. In view of our above observations, the impugned order is upheld, the appeal is dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
