TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 906
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvice Tax of Rs.50,49,848/- (including Education Cess) was confirmed. The impugned order also imposed penalty of Rs.5,000/- each under Section 77(b) and Section 77(e) of the Finance Act, 1994 and also imposed equal amount of tax as penalty under Section 78 of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of commercial construction, transportation of goods by road, clearing and forwarding agency service and supply of tangible goods. They are duly registered with the Department with effect from 03.03.2006 and have been filing Service Tax returns regularly. The appellant has been awarded a contract as 'sub-contractor' by M/s. Naresh Kumar & Co. Private Limited [hereinafter refe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of fact involved in the present case, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. The appellant thus submitted that the entire demand is barred by limitation. 5.2. Further, it is submitted that if the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked, the demand cannot be confirmed for the normal period as well. 5.3. In view of the above, the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue submits that the Master Circular No. 96/7/2007-S.T. dated 23.08.2007 has categorically stated that a sub-contractor is also liable to pay Service Tax even if the main contractor discharges tax on the gross value. Accordingly, he supported the impugned order. 7. Heard both sides an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctor to pay Service Tax even in cases where the main contractor pays Service Tax on the gross value. The demand involved in this Notice pertains to the period from 2007-08 to 2011-12 i.e., after the issue of the Circular mentioned hereinabove. Thus, we do not agree with the submission of the appellant that they were not aware of the liability to Service Tax as a sub-contractor. 8.3. We observe that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax v. M/s. Melange Developers Pvt. Ltd. [2019 (9) TMI 518 - CESTAT, New Delhi] has decided that even when the main contractor has discharged Service Tax, the sub-contractor is required to pay Service Tax. We also find that in the case of M/s. Akash Engineering v. Commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w of the decision of the Larger Bench cited above and by relying on the Board Circular (supra), we hold that the sub-contractor is liable to pay Service Tax even if the main contractor pays Service Tax on the gross value of the services. 9. In their submission, the appellant contends that the entire demand raised is barred by limitation of time. We observe that the demand has been raised in this Notice for the period from 2007-08 to 2011-12 vide Show Cause Notice issued on 08.10.2012 which is beyond the normal period of limitation of one year. We find that the appellant has raised the invoices to their main contractor viz. NKCPL without charging Service Tax and the same was intimated to the Department vide letter dated 21.11.2011. Thus, we....