2018 (3) TMI 499

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ork" had not discharged the service tax liability on the services rendered. After investigation and scrutiny of records, show-cause notice was issued to the appellants proposing to recover the service tax along with interest and for imposing penalties. The demand was made under the category of Erection, Commissioning and Installation work" and Maintenance or Repair Service." After adjudication, the original authority confirmed demand of Rs. 71,08,868/- along with interest and appropriated the amounts already paid by the appellants. A penalty of Rs. 24,34597/- was imposed under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed the present appeal. The department has also filed an appeal aggrieve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onsideration, the original authority had dropped the penalties imposed under section 76 and 77 of the Act. That the appellant is not liable to pay an amount of Rs. 24,34,597/- as these are services rendered as a sub-contractor to M/s. RS Wind Tech. That the appellants having established by documentary proof that the main contractor had discharged the service tax liability, the demand of service tax from the assessee again on the said services, cannot sustain. They have relied upon the judgments in the case of M/s. OKIOS Vs Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2007 (5) S.T.R. 229 (Tri. -Bang.); (ii) M/s. Senmac Pvt Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax reported in 2006 (4) S.T.R. 475 (Tri. -Bang.); and (iii) M/s. BBR (India) United Vs Co....