2007 (10) TMI 130

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ore the penalties. 2. The facts of the case are that M/s. Ashok Security Services, Tirunelveli had rendered security service to various persons during the period 16-10-98 to 31-8-03 without following the legal formalities, such as registering itself as 'service provider' with the Central Excise department, filing returns etc. After following due process of law, the original authority demanded an amount of Rs. 1,19,511/- being the service tax due and not paid, along with equal amount being interest due. Penalties of Rs. 500/- each was imposed under Section 75A and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. He also imposed penalties of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 76 and Rs. 1,19,511/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. In the appeal filed b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....service tax. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the respondents had argued that they were sub-contractors of M/s. Batliboi Enxco (P) Ltd., M/s. R.S. Windhtech and M/s. Version Software Ltd., who had redeployed the services of the respondents to various windmills who had entered into contracts with the above parties for maintenance of their windmills on an annual basis. The assessee had contended that the above parties were the 'service providers' and not the assessee. The assessee had taken the stand that the impugned ser vices were part of maintenance service provided by the clients of the assessee. The service tax had been paid for the maintenance service rendered for the windmills by the aforesaid clients of the assessee. 3.1 Consider....