TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice, the appellant had sub-contracted after making payment for which, the appellant had also taken credit for the Service Tax amount charged. There is also a finding by Ld. Commissioner that the appellant did indeed allot vendor code and ledger to Tata Steel Ltd. by treating the other as its customers on which there is no refutal/rebuttal by the appellant and it is also a part of the record that the services rendered were the results of open bidding/tender where even the appellant amongst others, participated. On being successful, purchased order was placed and the contract came up executed. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is a matter of record that the Revenue has come to know of the above facts only during the course of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue, that the Appellant appeared to have taken input/ service credit for providing above services; that the assessee had provided the above services to M/s. Tata Steel without payment of Service Tax though there was a contract for the above services, etc. Vide Show Cause Notice dt.08/10/2010, TGS was asked to explain inter-alia the non-payment of Service Tax, in response to which, it appears that the appellant filed its replies on various dates contending that the contract and the provision of service was only by one unit to another unit which is otherwise a service for the self and therefore, there was no liability to Service Tax. The Adjudicating Authority vide Impugned Order-in- Original, however considering the explanation, the contract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt. Ltd., 2019 (24) GSTL 42 (T) (iv) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., 2007 (8) STR 527 (T-Kol) (v) Precot Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2006 (2) STR 495 (T) (vi) Tata Steel Ltd. (Growth Shop) Vs. Commr. of C. Ex. S. T., 2014 (35) STR 374 (T-Kol) (vii) Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C. Ex., 2008 (228) ELT 124 (T-Kol) He also submitted a copy of Annual Report for the period 2013-14 to point out that the appellant is not a separate entity. 4. Per Contra, A. Roy, Ld. AR, submits that there is a valid contract entered into by the appellant with the Service Tax recipient, both are two different enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lot vendor code and ledger to Tata Steel Ltd. by treating the other as its customers on which there is no refutal/rebuttal by the appellant and it is also a part of the record that the services rendered were the results of open bidding/tender where even the appellant amongst others, participated. On being successful, purchased order was placed and the contract came up executed. 6. On considering above discussions by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, suffice it to say that the appellant has failed to prove that it is the case of Self Service but the Revenue has clearly established that there exists service, there is a service provider, there is also a service recipient; and for which the payment has been made. In the backdrop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
