2022 (12) TMI 1145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Form 26AS/ITR statement and taxable value declared in the ST-3 returns for the year 2016-17. 2. Shri. Saurabh Dixit, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that out of the total Service Tax demand proposed, substantial amount of demand is already dropped vide the impugned order, which is not challenged by revenue department. The balance demand in dispute consists of three separate types of issues, which are dealtwith separately. He also submitted that in all the cases, the Appellant acted merely as a sub-contractor to the main contractor , one M/s. Shantilal B. Patel & Co., on whom no demand of Service Tax has been raised till date, leading to their bonafide belief that they were exempt from payment of Service Tax i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng scheme. Also, no demand was ever raised on the main contractor, and hence, the Appellant considered themselves to be eligible for exemption as a sub-contractor under Notification No.25/12-ST Sr. No.29(h) thereof, which exempts a sub-contractor where main contractor is exempt from payment of Service Tax. 4. He further submits that as regards the Narmada Guest House construction and refurbishment work undertaken for the main contractor M/s. Shantilal Patel, the impugned order holds that inasmuch as the work order executed between the Appellant and the main contractor was dated 1.12.15, whereas only "contract entered into prior to 1.3.15 towards such construction services provided to Govt/local authority" is exempt from payment of Servic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o. 54 to 57. 7. For all the different demands raised, he submits that in none of the cases the main contractor has either paid Service Tax nor any demand was admittedly raised on them, and the Appellant always entertained a bonafide belief in this regard regarding eligibility of exemption being Governmental work. He finally argued that CESTAT in the case of P.R. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd 2010(249) ELT 232(Tri-Bang) as upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as reported at 2010(260) ELT A84(SC), held that if any duty was paid by job worker, would be availed as Cenvat Credit by principal anyway, this being revenue neutral situation, the demand has to be treated as time-barred. 8. Shri Dinesh M. Prithiani, learned Assistant Commissioner (A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tioned. Also if the Appellant was liable to pay Service Tax, back to back, even the main contractor would have also been liable to pay the same. Whatever Service Tax, if paid by the Appellant, would have been back to back availed as Cenvat Credit by the main contractor anyway. 11. We also find merit in the reliance on the decision of the CESTAT in the case of P.R. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd 2010(249) ELT 232(Tri-Bang) as upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as reported at 2010(260) ELT A84(SC), to the effect that if any duty was paid by job worker, would be availed as Cenvat Credit by principal anyway, this being revenue neutral situation, the demand has to be treated as time-barred. The same analogy can be applied even for sub-contracto....