2018 (2) TMI 151

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hennai, whereas now the same has been changed as The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai South Commissionerate, MHU Complex, 692, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035. We find that the prayer for amendment of the cause title as also the address for communication of the department needs to be amended in accordance with the change of address/jurisdiction of the department. The amended address shall be noted in the ST-5 Form. After allowing the miscellaneous application for change of cause title, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing and disposal. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 03.11.2010 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were awarde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts. Hence it is submitted that there cannot be tax levy on the same consideration again as the appellants is only a sub-contractor. c) The demand made for the extended period is not sustainable as the appellants bonafidely believed that the consideration being subjected to service tax as a whole at the hands of their clients (system integrators), they need not discharge service tax on the same. For the same reason penalty imposed also contested. A prayer was made for invoking Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 for setting aside the penalty imposed. 5. The Ld. AR contested the appeal and submitted that the terms of the work order are clear and simple. The appellants are engaged in procurement and management of such circuits. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Sectin 65 (105) (zzg) which covers management, maintenance or repair service. The activities undertaken by the appellants in pursuance of the work order is clearly covered by the tax entry as they are involved in management, maintenance of such circuit for which they have obtained consideration from their clients. We have no reason to hold against the tax liability of the appellants. Accordingly, on merits the impugned order is upheld. 7.2 The appellants raised certain issues regarding their non-liability of service tax as of sub-contractor. Reference was also made on certain decided cases. We note the facts of the present case are that Wipro and other clients of the appellants are engaged in multifarious services to their clients. In ....