TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1023X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax and in turn, made the appellant rely on the letter dated 12.07.07 issued by it in response to Show Cause Notice issued by the Department. This is a sufficient reason and other than this, there are no documents being brought out on record by the Revenue to prove mala fides on the part of this appellant, so as to justify invoking the larger period of limitation in this case. It is also a fact borne on record that the main contractor has not denied the fact of having collected full consideration including Service Tax from the clients. On a similar set of facts, in the case of another sub-contractor viz. M/s. Vinoth Shipping Services [ 2021 (8) TMI 1117 - CESTAT CHENNAI ], it is found that the Chennai Bench of the CESTAT has given a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a Customs House Agent and it appears that the Revenue noted the fact that the appellant had rendered services of loading, unloading and transport of imported Potash from port area to the godown as a sub-contractor of M/s. Aspinwall Co., Tuticorin, for which they had received an amount of Rs.2,13,41,222/-, and that made the Revenue to assume that although the above service was classifiable under cargo handling service , the appellant had not paid applicable Service Tax for the same. This prompted the issuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 20.09.2010 thereby proposing to demand the above from the appellant. 3. It appears that the appellant had filed its reply inter alia claiming that the main contractor namely, M/s. Aspinwall Co., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, this Bench vide Order reported in 2021 (55) G.S.T.L. 313 (Tribunal Chennai), has held that it was the duty of the sub-contractor to discharge Service Tax even if the main contractor had discharged the liability, but however, had set aside the demand inter alia on the ground of invoking of the extended period of limitation since there was no wilful suppression of facts. 6. Per contra, the Learned Deputy Commissioner for the Revenue relied upon the findings in the Order-in-Original, which are upheld in the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 7. We have considered the rival contentions and have also carefully gone through the orders of the lower authorities. The only issues to be decided by us, therefore, are: - (1) Whether the demand of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l relating to their output services and ought to have been included in the taxable value for the periods concerned and paid huge sums for the same. Whereas Aspinwal have not included the value of services rendered by their sub-contractors viz. M/s. Hari Co. and M/s. Vinodh Shipping in the taxable value shown in the ST-3 returns. The main contractor, vide their reply dated 19.02.2010 to the show cause notice, has not made any pointed reply and is non-committal about their liability. Their one-line reply in this regard is that they have assessed the correct value of taxable income and have not made any short payment of service tax. On the one hand, the main contractor is not paying service tax on such amount, and on the other hand, the sub- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation cannot be invoked against sub-contractor and has also, in turn, referred to the order of the Larger Bench in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi v. M/s. Melange Developers Pvt. Ltd. [2020 (33) G.S.T.L. 116 (Tri. LB)]. 9.2 There is no dispute that liability to Service Tax of the sub-contractor has been clarified by the Board vide Circular in F. No. B/11/1/2002-TRU dated 01.08.2002. Further, the order of the Learned Larger Bench in the case of M/s. Melange Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has, in clear terms, after referring to various orders of different Benches of the CESTAT and having also considered various Departmental clarifications, answered the reference by holding that a sub-contractor would be liable to pay Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the part of this appellant, so as to justify invoking the larger period of limitation in this case. It is also a fact borne on record that the main contractor has not denied the fact of having collected full consideration including Service Tax from the clients. On a similar set of facts, in the case of another sub-contractor viz. M/s. Vinoth Shipping Services (supra), we find that the Chennai Bench of the CESTAT has given a finding that there was no factual basis for invoking the extended period, though declining to entertain the appeal on merits, but allowing the assessee s contention on invoking of the extended period of limitation. 11.2 Viewed thus, the fact of suppression, etc., has not been established by the Revenue to justify invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
