2016 (12) TMI 1467

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se notice dated 31.10.2012 raising the following allegations: (a) That the appellants have undertaken works of nature of erection, commissioning and installation services and supply of tangible goods. (b) That on re-conciliation of ST3 returns for the period 2007-08 to 2010-11 with income as per Profit & Loss account there was short payment of service tax. (c) That the appellants have not paid service tax in respect of sub-contracting works executed on behalf of M/s L & T Ltd, M/s Raunaq International Ltd, M/s Alstom Projects India Ltd., and M/s Simplex Ltd., for the period 2007-08 to 2010-11. 2. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed service tax demand of Rs. 34,84,257/- payable under Erection Commissioning and I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant is liable to pay service tax as sub-contractor even though the main contractor has discharged the liability on the same services / entire contract. The appellant had contested the show cause notice on the following contentions also: (a) Even otherwise, demand of service tax on fabrication works is not legal. (b) Demand of service tax on the basis of P & L account without deducting the receivables, VAT, ST and other amounts is improper. (c) Suppression of facts cannot be alleged when they did not pay service tax on bonafide belief that sub contractor again need not pay service tax. 4. The Ld. Counsel pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not go into the entire contentions raised by the appellants, but has simply confin....

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. The other grievance is that the demand of service tax has been confirmed basing on P & L account without deducting the receivable, service tax, VAT, export turnover which is arbitrary and illegal. That the appellant is a proprietor and is liable to pay service tax only on receivable and not on billed amount. That though the appellant produced documentary evidences to establish these contentions put forward by him, the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider these contentions. 5. On behalf of department, the Ld. AR Sh. Nagraj Naik reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He relied upon the Board Circular dated 23.08.2007 and contended that the appellant is liable to discharge the service tax liability though the main co....