9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Appellant Shri Shivam Syal, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per: P. ANJANI KUMAR The appellants, M/s Channel Management and Marketing Chandigarh, assails the Order-in-Appeal dated 04.10.2012 vide which the OIO dated 25.11.2009 was upheld which in turn upheld the demand raised vide show-cause notice dated 10.04.2007. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lies on Navyug Alloys (P) Ltd. 2009 (13) STR 421 and Motiwal Yunus Jan Mohammad- 2017 (4) GSTL 34 and submits that as the tax stands paid by M/s SETD; the proof, of payment of service tax by M/s SETD, was submitted to the Appellate Commissioner vide submissions dated 23.08.2012. 4. Shri Shivam Syal, learned Authorized Representative for the Department, on the other hand, submits that the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants are required to pay service tax for the services rendered by them even though, their principals have discharged the duty on behalf of all the agents. We find that contrary to the findings of the impugned order that the appellants have not submitted proof of payment of duty by M/s SETD, the show-cause notice is categorical in stating that the disputed tax stands paid albeit by M/s SETD; Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntract. In the instant case, however, it is clear that M/s SETD have discharged the service tax payable by the Agent. Payment of service tax into the Revenue Exchequer is not in dispute. What is in dispute is who has to discharge the service tax liability. We find that service tax having been paid, though, by the principal on the services rendered by the appellant, it cannot be a case of non-payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
