9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17. The said appeal inter alia challenges the impugned order bearing no. FO/ST/A/51474/2023-ST[DB] dated 26th October, 2023 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter, 'CESTAT'). 3. The question that has been raised in the present appeal is whether under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, the Department could have invoked the extended period of limitation of five years for raising a demand on the Respondent. The said provision reads as under: "SECTION 73. Recovery of service tax not levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. 1. Where any service tax has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, Central Excise Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etion of his work does not in any way alter the fact of provision of taxable service by the sub-contractor. Services provided by sub-contractors are in the nature of input services. Service tax is, therefore, leviable on any taxable services provided, whether or not the services are provided by a person in his capacity as a sub-contractor and whether or not such services are used as input services. The fact that a given taxable service is intended for use as an input service by another service provider does not alter the taxability of the service provided." 5. However, during that entire period i.e. 2004 to 2007, there was an uncertainty as to whether service tax would be liable to be paid or not. In view thereof, it appears that the Resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der passed by the Commissioner on merits discharging the notice dated 22.10.2010 for the work performed by the sub-contractor pursuant io the contract, but for the reason that, the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked in the present case, we hold that the service tax demand for the aforesaid work performed by the sub-contractor, could not have been confirmed for the extended period of limitation. The appeal filed by the Department, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed. 5. Therefore, the Bench taking note of controversy which was prevailing and plethora of case law by which sub-agent was not required to discharge service tax liability held that a bona fide belief cannot be ruled out on the part of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
