TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 528
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Dibrugarh, confirming demand of service tax of Rs. 1,92,31,616/- with equivalent penalty and applicable interest for the period 2006-07 to 2008-09. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in providing taxable service in the category of Erection, Commissioning or Installation services to Assam State Electricity Board. Audit was carried out by the Service Tax department wherein non-payment of service tax was pointed out. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice dated 10.02.2011 (SCN) was issued wherein it was alleged that the sub-contractors appointed by the appellant did not include or pay service tax on services provided to the appellant and further that the appellant also did not pay service tax on the amount paid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of CST vs. Melange Developers Ltd [2019 (6) TMI 518]. He further submitted that the taxable value of Rs. 1,48,69,840/- considered by the Department for raising demand is actually the amount paid by them to the subcontractors / labourers through sardars, which is duly supported by CA certificate, on which the appellant is not liable to pay service tax. He further submitted that taxable amount of Rs. 8,10,06,351/- considered in SCN for raising demand in 2007-08 comprises of amount of Rs. 6,46,72,431/- paid to sub-contractors / labourers and the balance amount of Rs. 1,63,33,920/- is the invoice amount raised in 2007-08 for which payment has been received in subsequent period i.e. 2008-09 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the value of erection, commissioning or installation services alleged to have been received from Assam State Electricity Board and paid/reimbursed to sardars/ contractors which had not suffered service tax. Secondly, that even though certain amount have been received towards rendering services during 2008-09 but no service tax was paid on same. We have carefully considered the impugned order, we do not come across any finding where the Ld. Commissioner has analysed the evidences e.g. the work order issued by the Assam State Electricity Board, the conditions of payment and the scope of work undertaken by the appellant and the work executed through its sardars etc, the Ld. Advocate categorically claims that there have been no sub contract....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... value. Whatever expenses were incurred by them, they were liable to be included for payment of service tax. (b) Services rendered by appellant in absence of any sub-contractor, the service tax liability directly lies with them. (c) The appellant has not included the value of labour payment for calculating the gross amount charged for payment of service tax and have intentionally suppressed the value in ST-3 returns. (d) Benefit of Notification no. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 is not available for deduction. (e) Appellant suppressed the fact of non-payment and hence extended period of limitation is applicable and penalty is imposable. 7(iii). On perusal of the above, we find that the Ld. Commissioner has negligently adjudicated the mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egation as to whether at all the assessee has not paid or short paid service tax on the amount received or receivable from the client i.e. the State Electricity Board. We are afraid, in absence of such allegations in the SCN, how can the assessee be saddled with the service tax demand which was never proposed. It is important to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Nagpur vs. Ballarpur Industries Limited [2007 (215) ELT 489 (SC)] has deliberated on the importance of the SCN the relevant portion of which is extracted below: "21. Before concluding, we may mention that, in the present case, the second and the third show cause notices are alone remitted. The first show cause notice dated 21-5-1999 is set aside as timebar....