2019 (6) TMI 212

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R.) for Respondent ORDER RAMESH NAIR This appeal is directed against order in appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals). There are two issues involved in the present appeal. • Demand of Rs. 41,34,004/- due to denial of benefit of Notification No. 15/2004 dated 10.09.2004 and Notification NO. 01.2006 dated 01.03.2006 on the ground that the appellant has not included the value of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s a Circular of Board according to which the sub-contractor were not liable to pay service tax when the main contractor is paying the service tax on the overall contract, therefore, the appellant being a sub-contractor need not to pay the service tax at the intermediate stage of contract as sub-contractor. He submits that if at all the duty is payable, the same is barred by limitation for the reas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the issue that whether the appellant is entitled for Notification No. 15/04 and Notification 01/06, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already decided that even if the material supplied free of cost by the service recipient and value thereof is not included in the gross value of service the benefit of Notification no. 15/04 and 01/06 cannot be denied, therefore, we hold that in principle the appellan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tation. From the impugned order, we find that the authority below denied the benefit of sub-contractor only on the ground that during the relevant time, the cenvat scheme was operated, accordingly, the appellant was entitled to avail the cenvat credit and discharge the service tax. However, whether the circular is applicable and consequently whether the demand is hit by limitation or otherwise has....