Nana Lal Suthar vs C.C.E., Jaipur-I

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 35/(SLM)ST/JPR-II/2015 dated 02/03/2015 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Jaipur)

Date of Hearing: 07/09/2015

Date of Pronouncement: 18/09/2015

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?

Nana Lal Suthar Appellant

Vs.

C.C.E., Jaipur-I Respondent

Appearance:

Present for the Appellant: Shri G.K. Sarkar, Advocate

Present for the Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gupta, (AR)

Coram: Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)

Final Order No. 52874/2015

Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S.

1. The brief facts are that appellant is a subcontractor of M/s Umesh Construction Company and was providing commercial construction services to the main contractor. A show cause notice was issued for the period 200607 to 200809 proposing demand of service tax for providing taxable services of commercial construction services. The appellants defended the SCN contending that they were only subcontractor and M/s Umesh Construction Company who was the main contractor in regard to the service recipient had already discharged the tax liability on the service rendered. They also produced a certificate from the main contractor to the effect that service tax liability accruing on the services rendered by the appellants had already been discharged. The notice finalized in the order which confirmed the demand and also imposed penalty. In appeal the same was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved, the appellant is before the Tribunal.

2. At the time of hearing the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of the Tribunal passed in Final Order No. A/50882/2015SM[BR] dated 23/03/2015. The Learned Departmental Representative was fair enough to concede the same. The Tribunal in the said judgment referring to the decision in Larson & Turbo Ltd Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh  2006  T I OL  327-HC  HYD-VAT has observed that when service tax can be demanded either from the subcontractor or from the main contractor, when the main contractor has paid the service tax, the subcontractor is not required to pay service tax for the same services rendered. I fully concur with the view of the Tribunal laid in the above judgment and apply the same to the case in hand, the facts and issue being identical.

3. The result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

(Pronounced on 18/09/2015)

(Sulekha Beevi C.S.)

Member (Judicial)

K. Gupta

??

??

??

??

3