2014 (7) TMI 1047

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peals are signed by Shri Anil Joseph as Director of Geo Structural (P) Ltd. 2. M/s. Geo Structural was a partnership firm engaged in providing consultancy in the field of building construction to individuals, architects and contractors and other consulting engineers since July 1997. This firm was re-constituted into a private limited company with the name Geo Structural (P) Ltd. with effect from 30-6-2001. The demands for service tax in the two appeals are as under : S. No. Appeal No. Name of Appellant Period Involved Tax amount confirmed in Adjudication Order 1. ST/171/06 Geo Structural 1-7-1997 to 30-6-2001 1,03,131 2. ST/170/06 Geo Structural (P) Ltd 1-7-2001 to 31-1-2003 62,052 &nb....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly appellants had paid an amount of Rs. 31,615/- (service tax + interest), out of the disputed liability and confirmed the rest of the demand. Commissioner did not make any specific order regarding penalty imposed by the adjudication order. 7. Aggrieved by the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) the appellants have filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The Counsel for appellant submits that the demand is for the period 30-9-1998 to 16-10-1998 is not sustainable because the service was rendered by the partnership firm for which the present private Ltd. company cannot be held liable. 9. His main contention was that the prime contractor rendering service to clients were architects or other contractors who paid serv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the architects had in fact paid service tax on the value of services rendered by the appellant and the claim now being made is a bald claim. He points out that the appellants were originally paying service tax correctly but started paying tax on part of the value of services rendered without taking any advice from the department and it was a case of deliberate attempt to avoid payment of tax and hence the demand is confirmed correctly. 11. Considered submissions on both sides. 12. The main contention of the appellant is that the architects paid service tax on value of services rendered by the appellants. This is a highly unlikely scenario. The burden to prove such payment was on the appellants who were claiming relief fr....