2010 (11) TMI 312

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on viz. L&T Limited., RIL, Gujarat Gas Company Limited during October 2006 to January 2007 under contracts/work orders. The appellant paid the service tax on such construction services, provided to the user organizations, availing the benefit of a conditional exemption notification No. 01/2006-S.T., dated 1-3-2006 which grants exemption from service tax in excess of tax calculated on one third of the gross amount charged subject to various conditions enumerated therein. The appellant also engaged sub-contractors namely (a) M/s. Sun Constructions (b) M/s. Tejaswani Constructions and (c) M/s. Harsh Constructions for carrying out the construction services provided by the appellant as main contractor. Service tax was paid by the sub-contractors....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the contract value availing benefit of Notification No. 01/2006 (ST on 33% of gross value) (c)    Sub-contractors have also paid service tax on the sub-contracted value availing benefit of Notification 01/2006. (d)   Appellant's contention is that sub contractors have wrongly paid service tax. The sub-contractors have passed on the burden to them. (e)    Appellant is of the view that no service tax was required to be paid by the sub-contractor in view of the various decisions of the Tribunal. During the course of hearing before Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal as also the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of their plea that the same servi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, it cannot be said that the contractor is liable to pay duty on the same. Service definitely stands provided only once. As such by no stretch of imagination service tax in respect of the same service can be paid for the second time. It is not a case where the service provided by sub-contractor is further used by him for providing services to his buyers. As such, the example of inputs being used in the final product and both leviable to excise duty is not apt. Admittedly, the service in the present case stands provided by the sub-contractor through the main contractor i.e. appellant. It stands clarified by the Board also that there cannot be double taxation in cases where services are rendered by a person through another person to the u....