TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (10) TMI 379
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. Shri Anil Kumar, JDR, for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 173/2003 dated 28-10-2003 by which the appellants claimed to be treated as 'Architect and Landscape Designers' has been rejected and also their plea that they were only sub-contractors of M/s. Chandravarkar and Thacker (P) Ltd., Bangalore and therefore the Service Tax is not leviable on the sub-contra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... finding that their claim is "after thought" is not correct when the facts were known to the department. He further points out that the fact that appellant being a sub-contractor to the M/s. Chandravarkar and Thacker (P) Ltd. is an admitted fact and not disputed by Revenue. In such a circumstance, Revenue cannot proceed to recover the Service Tax against the sub-contractor, as noted by the Trade N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kar and Thacker (P) Ltd., Bangalore is not disputed and hence, the demands are not sustainable. 4. The learned JDR contested these submissions and also the citations. He submits that Revenue has not yet filed their appeal against these orders and there is a possibility of Revenue challenging these orders. 5. On a careful consideration, we notice from the records that the appellant never claimed ....