TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 363
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er side on this modality of arrangement of contractor and sub-contractor. There is also no dispute that period involved in adjudication is 8-7-2005 to 7-8-2006, When the appellant sub-contractor did not seek registration under Finance Act, 1994 and also did not file the return till 24-1-2007 for the above period, faced adjudication, resulting in levy of service tax demand of Rs. 1,51,14,126 with equal amount of penalty under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. So also penalty under sections 76 and 77 was levied. The demand levied above was followed by interest under section 75 of Finance Act, 1994. 2. Learned Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that they were under bona fide belief that the service provide b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom service tax under Finance Act, 1994. The said para 9 is reproduced below for appreciation. "9. It is true that there is no provision under Finance Act, 1994 for double taxation. The scheme of service tax law suggest that it is a single point tax law without being a multiple taxation legislation. In absence of any statutory provision to the contrary, providing of service being event of levy, self same service provided shall not be doubly taxable. If service tax is paid by a sub-broker in respect of same taxable service provided by the stock-broker, the stock-broker is entitled to the credit of the tax so paid on such service if entire chain of identity of sub-broker and stock-broker is established and transactions are provided to be one....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., if otherwise disentitled. 7. We do not find any substance in the arguments that the proceedings is time barred when there is escapement of scrutiny and the appellant did not seek registration to claim its bona fide. So also returns were not filed to claim bona fide. Therefore, there shall not be any concession in penalty. But we hold that the appellant shall be liable to service tax being bracketed by charging section of the law for the service provided. 8. In conclusion, we hold as under :- (i) The appellant shall be liable to service tax in respect of the taxable service provided for the period 8-7-2005 to 7-8-2006 (ii) The appellant shall be entitled to the cum-tax benefit subject to scrutiny of evidence by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue to bifurcation of return periods. The same gross value has undergone taxation and cannot be doubly taxed. But learned Commissioner denied that, but revenue supports order of Authority below. 2. Upon hearing the matter and pleading of both sides, we have remanded the matter in appeal No. ST/92 of 2008 in the manner indicated aforesaid. Therefore consequence of appeal No. ST/92/2008 having bearing on this appeal, pleading of double taxation can be factually examined and both cases can be taken up for disposal commonly to appreciate totality of facts and circumstances. To grant a fair opportunity of defence, we make it clear to the appellant that the appellant shall appear before learned Adjudicating Authority and satisfy him that "the gro....