9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand of Service Tax of Rs. 57,81,586/- (Service Tax of Rs. 56,13,191/, Education Cess of Rs.1,12,263/- and S&H.E. Cess of Rs.56,132/-) along with interest and imposed equal amount of tax as penalty. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant has been rendering taxable services under the category of 'works contract service' which is liable to Service Tax as per clause 105(zzzza) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. It was alleged that the appellant had not discharged their Service Tax liability and not filed any ST-3 return during the period from 2008-09 to 2010-11. It was also alleged that the appellant had filed ST-3 Return during the period from 2011-12 to 2012-13 (up to June, 2012) showing gross taxable value as 'ni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arh), M/s. DVC and M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited; they purchase materials and deploy manpower for execution the work orders. 3.2. During the period under dispute, the appellant submits that they have done contractual work of M/s. Bridge and Roof Co. (I) Ltd. in West Bengal for construction of their Coal Handling Plant and Civil Work of Power Block One covering Power House Including control room bay, mill bay and misc. civil work. The appellant claimed that the principal viz. M/s. Bridge and Roof Co. (I) Ltd. had paid the appropriate service tax in respect of above job and submitted certificates issued by the principal to this effect. Thus, appellant submitted that they are not liable to pay any Service Tax on this work. 3.3. During ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing aside the remaining part of the demands confirmed in the impugned order. 3.6. Moreover, the appellant submits that they have not suppressed any information from the Department and hence the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked to confirm the demands; for the same reason, it is submitted that penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is also not imposable. 3.7. In view of these submissions, the appellant has prayed for allowing their appeal 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue submits that as per the clarification issued by the Board vide Circular No. 96/7/2007-S.T. dated 23.08.2007, even if the main contractor pays Service Tax, the sub-contractor is still liable to pay Service Tax on the services ren ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his regard as the said issue has already been clarified by the Board vide Circular No. 96/7/2007-S.T. dated 23.08.2007 at Point No. 999.03/23-8-07. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant clarification is reproduced below: - 999.03/ 23-8-07 A taxable service provider outsources a part of the work by engaging another service provider, generally known as sub-contractor. Service tax is paid by the service provider for the total work. In such cases, whether service tax is liable to be paid by the service provider known as sub-contractor who undertakes only part of the whole work. A sub-contractor is essentially a taxable service provider. The fact that services provided by such sub-contractors are used by the main service provider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de the demand confirmed under this category by invoking the extended period of limitation and uphold the demand within the normal period. No penalty is imposable on the demand confirmed for the normal period of limitation. 6.3. Regarding the works contract service rendered by the appellant to M/s. DVC in their construction of store shed with CGI Sheet Roof and to M/s. Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited in their construction of Shuttering, Reinforcement and Concreting work, we observe that the appellant has agreed their service tax liability and raised the bill with Service Tax @ 4.12%. We agree with the submission of the appellant that they have rendered service with materials and hence service tax is liable to be paid @4.12% only for the wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e hold that suppression of fact with intention to evade the tax is established. Accordingly, the appellant is liable for penalty equal to the Service Tax demand confirmed on this count. 8. In view of the above discussions, we pass the following order: (i) In respect of the work contract service rendered to M/s. Bridge and Roof Co. (I) Ltd. in West Bengal, we set aside the demand confirmed under this category by invoking the extended period of limitation and the demand within the normal period is confirmed. No penalty is imposable on the demand confirmed in this regard. (ii) Regarding the works contract service rendered by the appellant to DVC and to Paharpur Cooling Towers Limited, we hold that the appellant is liable to pay service ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
