2017 (6) TMI 685

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... a back to back contract, where the principal contractor had remitted the service tax on their behalf. It appears that challans relating to service tax paid by the principal contractor had been submitted by the appellant; however the same had not been considered by the department on the plea that they alone were the person liable for paying the service tax, irrespective of whether they have collected the service tax from the receiver or not. The tax demand was confirmed by the original authority along with interest thereon and imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994. Appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal), however the same was upheld vide impugned order dated 18.02.2013. Hence this appeal. 2. Today ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the they are not liable to pay service tax. The Tribunal in that matter took the view that provider of taxable services has to discharge service tax liability. He further places reliance on the decision of the Tribunal at Mumbai in Vidarbha Cricket Association Vs. CCE, Nagpur - 2015 (38) STR 99 (Tri.-Mum.). 4. At this point, ld. Advocate submits that the Tribunal in Urvi Construction Vs. CST, Ahmedabad - 2010 (17) STR 302 (Tri.-Ahmd.) has equivocally held that when service tax has been paid by the main contractor charging tax on the sub-contractor amounts to taxing the same service twice. 5. Heard both sides and have gone through the records. 6.1 In respect of the decision of Sew Construction Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the Ld. AR, we f....