TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (2) TMI 202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax in respect of this amount. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erroneously construed the provisions of law and exempted that sum from tax. 1.2 The respondent is in Cross Objection challenging para 7 of the Order in Appeal. Shri Bajpai, ld. Counsel submits that there is a clear distinction between contractor and sub-contractor. The real service is rendered by a contractor while the sub-contractor aids in achieving the objective of the contractor. Therefore, the service provider, who is a contractor, should necessarily be required to discharge service tax liability as that would be required by law. There is a consistent view of the Tribunal in the cases of (1) M/s. OIKOS v. Commissioner reported in 2007 (5) S.T.R. 229 (Tri.-Bang.). (2) M/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ealt under the law to cause prejudice to him. He further brings to our notice that none of the decisions of the Tribunal he relied upon are either stayed or reversed by any higher Court. In such a scenario, he also places the operative part of the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and submits that the ld. Commr. (Appeals) had all materials before him for which he gave liberty to the respondent to file refund application. Accordingly, he pleads that if the record shows that the principal contractor has discharged the service tax in relation to the subject matter, this respondent should not be doubly taxed. He relies on the letter issued by the principal contractor M/s. Container Corporation of India Ltd. issued on 13th August, 2003 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the ld. Appellate authority himself felt that the respondent should get refund but he failed to discharge his duty as a public servant to render complete justice as the circumstances warranted since the case is under pre-master Circular era. We do appreciate his difficulties. The appellate order was passed on 21st August, 2007 that is just 2 days before the master Circular was issued. We also appreciate that the respondent should get the double taxation relief which is granted in a different manner through the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, we are of the view that if it is proved from record, on verification, that the principal contractor has discharged the tax liability in respect of the contract, cascading effects should be avoide....