TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (6) TMI 419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....neither got themselves registered nor have they paid service tax on the service provided by them. During the course of the audit by the Department it was detected that the appellant have been providing taxable service to M/s SCG Contracts Pvt. Ltd. during the period from 2007-2008 to 2010-2011 (upto September 2010). The total value of the service provided by the appellant to M/s SCG Contracts Pvt. Ltd. as sub-contractor amounted to Rs. 83,96,906/- for the period 2007-2008 to 2009-2010. The Department has accordingly issued a show cause notice dated 19 April 2012 which got adjudicated by learned Additional Commissioner vide his order-in-original No. 64/RG/DIV.II/2013 dated 3 May 2013. Under the above-mentioned impugned order-in-original a se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tax, New Delhi versus M/s Melange Developers Pvt. Ltd. reported under 2019 - TIOL - 1684 - CESTAT - DEL - LB has held that as per the scheme of levy of service tax under the Finance Act every service provider need to discharge his service tax liability and, therefore, on merits the issue stand decided against them. The learned Advocate has contended that as per the merits and in view of this Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Melange Developers Pvt. Ltd. the appellant need to pay service tax on the services provided by them to M/s SCG Contracts Pvt. Ltd., however, he contended that there are no grounds for invoking the extended time proviso under Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994, as none of the elements required for invo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....luded in the taxable value declared by the principal provider for payment of service tax they are not required to pay service tax. In these circumstances, it was contended that there was no intent to evade service tax in this case. The following case laws has also been relied on by learned Advocate in this regard :- (i) Principal Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai versus C. Kamalakannan dated 23 August 2018 cited as 2018 (18) G.S.T.L. 589 (Mad.) ; (ii) Commissioner versus Wonderax Laboratories (I) Pvt. Ltd. dated 4 August 2008 cited as 2010 (255) E.L.T. A16 (S.C.); (iii) Adhikrut Jabti Evam Vasuli versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore dated 27 July 2017 cited as 2017 (6) G.S.T.L. 529 (Tri. - D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... value of the service. It cannot be alleged that there have been element of fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement or suppression of acts with an intent to evade service tax, we therefore feel that demand in such circumstances can only be confirmed for the normal period of demand as provided under Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994. While taking the above view, we take the shelter the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise versus Wonderax Laboratories (I) Pvt. Ltd. reported under 2010 (255) E.L.T. 60 (Del.). This decision of Hon'ble High Court has also been endorsed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and reported under 2010 (255) E.L.T. A16 (S.C.). The relevant para of the above decision is reprodu....