2017 (9) TMI 232

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h reference to machinery of main client like BHEL, ALSTOM, etc. Demand proceedings were Initiated against the appellant for non-payment of Service Tax, on their activities during the period 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2007. The demand was issued on 28.04.2008. The case was adjudicated resulting in the impugned order. The original authority confirmed Service Tax liability of Rs. 1,08,18,323/- and imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. A further penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 77 was also imposed. 2. The ld. Counsel appeared for the appellant submitted that the appellant were providing services to the main contractors in the capacity of sub-contractor. Based on various clarifications issued by the Board as well....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oth the sides and perused appeal records. The fact that the appellants were providing a taxable service during the material time, is not in dispute. However, they contested their liability to pay service tax only on the ground that the main contractor paid service tax on the full value which included the part of the consideration they received for the sub-contracted work. The demand was also contested on the limitation in view of the then prevailing clarifications and bonafide belief based on such clarifications. We have examined the impugned order carefully. We note that while the tax likability of the appellant is not seriously contested, the question for examination is the application of limitation for the demand confirmed in the impugne....