2016 (7) TMI 128

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellants that there was a written agreement between the appellant and main contractor to the effect that the main contractor would discharge the service tax liability of the subject work. That on the strength of such agreement appellant neither paid tax nor filed returns for the subject work. 3. During the audit in October 2008, it was observed by department that appellant has not discharged the service tax liability on the services under the said sub-contract. A show-cause notice dated 05/01/2011 was issued raising a demand of Rs. 12,60,720/- towards the taxable service of commercial or industrial construction services along with interest and also proposing to impose penalty under Section 70 read with Rule 7 of Service Tax rules, 1994, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tration under Works Contract Service. The appellant bona fidely believed that the activities carried out by appellant would fall within the category of works contract service. That there was no intention to evade payment of duty. It is also submitted that the appellants failed to discharge the burden of service tax liability for the reason that as per the agreement with the main contractor, the service tax liability was to be discharged by main contractor. The appellant believed that the main contractor would pay the service tax. Though the agreement was produced before the original authority, it was not considered at all. She pleaded that the penalties imposed under Section 77 and 78 may be waived. 5. Against this, the learned AR submitte....