TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 680
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7 to 31.01.2012. 2.1 A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the appellant had entered into a building-material contract with the promoters. The Commissioner also records that the appellant was to provide all materials like jelly, metal, river sand, cement, etc., including the entire labour for construction, for which an amount of Rs.900/- per square foot was fixed as the primary agreement was for the construction of residential complex. The appellant had undertaken the construction work as a sub-contractor and it is also recorded that the principal contractor had discharged the applicable Service Tax on the entire project. 2.2 At paragraph 08.05, the Commissioner observes that the classification of the taxable service was the constr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntend that the partnership firm having discharged the Service Tax liability, there is no question of payment of the same service tax once again by the appellant; the appellant being a partner of the partnership firm, has rendered essentially the service to itself which is not a taxable event. 5.2 Without prejudice to the above, he would also argue that the service rendered was indivisible works contract service, which has also been admitted in the impugned order and hence the demand up to 31.05.2007 is liable to be set aside, as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Kerala v. M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. [2015 (39) S.T.R. 913 (S.C.)], which has been followed by various CESTAT Benches....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....voke the larger period of limitation since all the details were available in the statutory records of the appellant and it is an undisputed fact that the partnership concern had discharged the Service Tax liability, the Revenue having accepted the Service Tax payment made by the partnership concern, can never allege suppression in the hands of the partner of the partnership firm, which in fact not only defies the logic but also contrary to law. 6. Per contra, Shri M. Ambe, Ld. Deputy Commissioner, relied on the findings in the impugned order. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and we have gone through the documents placed on record, and the only issue that arises for our consideration is: whether the demand, as confirmed in the impugn....