https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442611 The Tribunal held that the sub-contractor is liable to pay Service Tax but is entitled to cum-tax benefit. It acknowledged the confusion regarding the taxability of sub-contractors when the main contractor pays the tax, prompting the establishment of a Larger Bench for clarity. The extended period was not applicable due to the absence of suppression of facts. The Appellant was penalized under Section 77 for failure to register, with the Service Tax liability limited to the normal period with cum-tax benefit, along with confirming the penalty and interest recovery. en-us Tue, 29 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Sep 2023 14:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442611 The Tribunal held that the sub-contractor is liable to pay Service Tax but is entitled to cum-tax benefit. It acknowledged the confusion regarding the taxability of sub-contractors when the main contractor pays the tax, prompting the establishment of a Larger Bench for clarity. The extended period was not applicable due to the absence of suppression of facts. The Appellant was penalized under Section 77 for failure to register, with the Service Tax liability limited to the normal period with cum-tax benefit, along with confirming the penalty and interest recovery. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 29 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442611