TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 1214
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0.2015 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Appellant was engaged by M/s Steel Works Construction Limited (HSCL) and M/s Baghel Infrastructure Private Limited, M/s Reliance Infrastructure Limited, M/S SASAN & M/s HINDALCO etc. for construction related services / works contract services in relation to construction of road, reservoir etc. The Revenue on specific information, undertook scrutiny of records of the Appellant and found short payment of service tax on comparison of amount shown in their ST-3 returns with that in Profit & Loss Account in the respective period from 2009-10 to 2012-13. The Revenue, therefore, demanded service tax of Rs.3,43,97,544/- on differential value for the period from 2009-10 to 2012-13. The Appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... regular yearly audit has been conducted by the Revenue and therefore extended period of limitation is not invokable and thus it was not a case of invocation of conditions prescribed in proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The Ld. Counsel also submitted copies of the relied upon decisions of the Tribunal and quoted the reference of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order in this connection. 6. On the order hand, the Ld. AR for the department reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that there is substantial difference in the value shown in ST-3 returns and the Profit & Loss Account, but he did comment on the issue of limitation. 7. The Ld. Counsel explained that this difference in taxable value of ST-3 returns an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Finance Act 1994 does not grant any immunity to the subcontractor from levy of service tax when undisputedly taxable service is provided by them. 11. We find that mainly the following two issues are required to be decided in this appeal. (a) Whether the Appellant are still required to pay Service tax on the value of services on which service recipients have discharged tax liability on their behalf. (b) Whether the demand is barred by limitation as regular audit inspections have been conducted by the Revenue during the disputed period. 12. As regards liability of tax payment by the Appellant where their main contractors have already paid the tax on their behalf, we find that this remained a vexed issue for the assesses for over the per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actor to pay tax even if the main contractor / service recipient has discharged the tax liability on his behalf (Appellant). 13. Hence, this was a legal dispute which involved interpretation of law and mala-fide intention or suppression with intent to evade payment of service tax cannot be attributed to the Appellant. 14. As regards the issue of applicability of extended period of limitation, we find that the Appellant have been regularly filing their ST-3 returns and their records have been regularly audited by the Audit Wing of the Department and they have been complying with audit objection. They have also submitted audit reports and compliance thereof. Further, Adjudicating Authority has not made any observation as to how suppression ....