TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1024
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nting of structurals of M/s RINL on behalf of M/s HSCL, which is taxable service falling under MMRS [Section 65(64) read with Section 65(105) (zzg) of the Finance Act, 1994]. Appellants though received consideration of Rs. 1,36,48,589/- did not pay service tax of Rs. 12,74,528/- (incl Cesses). Besides, they also supplied manpower for cleaning and application of paints to Structurals of M/s RINL on behalf of M/s RadhaMadav Engineering Enterprises, which falls under Manpower Recruitment & Supply Agency Services (Section 65(68) read with Section 65 (105) (k) ibid) and received consideration Rs. 1,50,93,676/- but did not pay service tax of Rs. 14,90,865/- (incl. Cesses). Again, appellant by letting out their immovable properties to tenants received rental of Rs. 17,75,200/- but did not pay service tax liability of Rs. 1,56,592/- (incl Cesses) under Renting of Immovable Property services (Section 65(90) read with Section 65(105)(zzzz) of Finance Act, 1994). According to appellant M/s RINL granted the work orders to M/s HSCL and M/s RadhaMadhav Eng Enterprises (Main Contractors) to carry out the works, who in-turn appointed the appellant to carry out the jobs entrusted, and on such activ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(RIPS) was included in the tax net only from 01.06.2007. There was much doubt during the relevant period whether the said services per se were taxable or not. Thereafter an amendment was brought forth in the definition of RIPS making the services taxable retrospectively from 01.06.2007 onwards. The demand raised in the show cause notice is for 2007-08 to 2011-12. That the Show Cause Notice dated 18.04.2013 is issued invoking extended period of limitation and that the appellant cannot be saddled with suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax under RIPS since the said service has been made taxable by an amendment making the RIPS taxable services retrospectively. 5. Against this, the Ld. AR, Sh. Nagraj Naik reiterated the findings in the impugned order. The Ld. AR, submitted that in the impugned order it is discussed that the main contractor has paid the service tax on the services of MRAS and MMRS Services. In respect of service tax demand on RIPS, the Ld. AR, submitted that the benefit of threshold limit will not be applicable to the appellant as the services discharged in the capacity of subcontractor are also taxable services and when value of such services....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....b-contractor to appellant. The Department has proceeded to confirm the demand on these services merely relying upon Board Circular No. 96/7/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007. The issue whether sub-contractor is also liable to pay service tax when the main contractor has discharged the service tax liability on the same services has been settled in various decisions. In the case of Nana Lal Suthar Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I [2015-TIOL-2357-CESTAT-Del] the Tribunal had analyzed a similar issue and held that the sub contractor is absolved from the liability when the main contractor has discharged the liability on the same services. The Tribunal therein referred to judgment in Larson & Trubo Ltd., Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [2006-TIOL-327-HC-AP-VAT]. The same view has been followed by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Visesh Engineering Co. Vs. CCE & ST, Guntur Final Order No. A/30230/2016 dated 15.02.2016. Following the same I hold that the demand in respect of MRA, MMRS are unsustainable, and requires to be set aside, which I hereby do. 8. The next issue is with regard to the demand of service tax on RIPS. The first contention put forward by the appellant is that they would fall within the exemption li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the extended period is highly irregular. The appellant cites the following decisions in this regard: (a) CST, Noida Vs. Greater Noida Development Authority [2015 (40) STR 46 (ALL)] (b) Raja Rambabu SSK Ltd., Vs. CCE, Kolhapur [2014-TIOL-1272-CESTAT-Mumbai] (c) The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Morarji Goculada B&W Co. Ltd., Vs. UOI [1996 (83) ELT 259 (SC)] relying on its decision in the case of JK Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills [1987 (32) ELT 234 (SC)] held that extended period of limitation of five years is inapplicable to such retrospective amendments. (d) In the case of Tumkur District Co-Op Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd., Vs. CCE, Bangalore, the Honorable Tribunal held that retrospective amendment to the Finance Act is applicable only if the show cause notice is issued before the amendment and demand for the extended period is not applicable if notice is issued after amendment. (e) Even the CBEC in its Circular No. 588/25/2001-CX dated 19.09.2001 circulated the opinion of the Additional Solicitor General of India clarified that SCN s have not been issued so far, now it will not be open to issue SCN s for the past period unless it is within the per....