2010 (11) TMI 437

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... After hearing both sides on the stay petition, we find that the issue being in a narrow compass, the appeal itself could be disposed off, hence after allowing the application for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts involved, we take up the appeal for disposal. 3. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant herein is providing taxable service under the category of 'consulting engineers service' and has taken the registration from the Department for discharge of service tax liability in accordance with law. During the scrutiny of the records of the appellant, it was noticed that the appellant has failed to discharge the service tax of Rs. 11,02,347/- on the value of taxable services realized by them from....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es and submits that both the lower authorities have gone beyond the remand orders and have readjudicated the matter as to whether the appellant was sub-consultant or not. 5. Ld. Jt.CDR reiterated the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and Adjudicating Authority. 6. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. On perusal of the records, we find that the ld. Counsel's submission that the very same issue was before the Bench and the Bench has come to the conclusion that the appellant is a sub-consultant. We may reproduce the said findings, which are as under :- 2. We have perused the records and the Memorandum of Understanding for consultancy service agreement and noticed t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....evy of penalty under Section 78 of the Act. It is the submission that as Service tax liability does not arise, therefore the question of levy of penalty also does not attract. 2. The learned Jt. CDR submits that the appellants have now produced the tabulated details showing fees along with Service tax paid by the main consultant and these details are required to be verified. Therefore the matter may be remanded to the original authority for de novo consideration. 3. On a careful consideration of the matter, we notice that there is no dispute about the appellants being a sub-consultant of M/s. Chandravarkar & Thackar (P) Ltd. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not followed the Board's Circular and Trade Notices which clearly laid down....