2017 (3) TMI 614

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Respondent.  [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] 1. The above appeal is filed against the confirmation of service tax demand, interest and the penalty imposed. The issue involved is whether the appellant who is a sub-contractor is liable to discharge the service tax in regard to the services which he has executed on behalf of the main contractor, when the main contractor has discharged ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... value received from Service Receiver i.e. ONGC Ltd. Dehradun, without claiming any deduction or abatement in respect of the portion of the contract value received. Therefore, we are not liable to pay service tax once again on the sub contract value received from M/s Vishesh Engineering Company. In view of the fact that demanding service tax once again from us would lead to double taxation. There ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 77,724    Total Service Tax paid details are as follows: on 19.02.2010 paid Rs.10,10,118 on 31.03.2010 paid Rs.48,36,481 on 06.07.2010 paid Rs.15,51,370 on 27.09.2010 paid Rs.4,07,858 Total Service Tax paid 78,05,827 3. It is seen that even though appellant furnished the details of the service tax paid by the main contractor, and even though ....