TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 566
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g civil construction works that is laying of pile foundation for erection of electrical transmission towers. The appellant is registered with the department for providing manpower recruitment / supply agency service and works contract service. As per the agreement entered into by Kalpataru and the appellant, materials, namely steel, concrete, cement, jelly, sand, etc., are provided by the service receiver Kalpataru while the appellant collected only service charges for labour works such as excavation, concreting, placing RCC and counter poise, earthing, backfilling with bored soil, removal of excess soil, road making as required at site, cleaning of site for constructing electrical tower, preparatory work for constructing road for carrying goods to the construction place, etc. However, procuring required quantum of blue metal and sand for the construction is within the scope of the appellant. During audit of the accounts of the appellant, it was noticed that for the period from October-12 to March-13, the appellant has classified the services as manpower supply service and paid service tax at 3.09% on the service charges and from April-13 to November-14, classified the said service....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 05.11.2012 and KPTL/WO.226BA/12- 13/OW/001 dated 30.01.2013 are falling under positive service as confirmed by the lower adjudicating authority. However, for the limited purpose of reworking the liabilities and consequential modification in the penalty the appellate authority remitted the matter back to the original adjudicating authority. Aggrieved by the same the appellant has preferred this appeal and is now before this Tribunal. 5. Shri. M.N. Bharathi, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and submitted as under : - (i) That in para 10 of the impugned order the appellate authority erred in finding that the demand period started from April 2012, whereas, Notification No.30/ 2012, dated 26-06-2012 came into effect from 1-7-2012 and therefore the reverse charge was not applicable to works contract prior to that date. Whereas, the first contract namely KPTL/CHN/FDN/2012-13/ 226A/002, dated 5-11-2012, starts from 5-11-2012 and the second contract KPTL/WO.226BA/12-13/OW/001, dated 30-01- 2013, starts from 30-01-2013 and the third contract KPTL/ORAI/FDN/13-14/WO No./02, dated 15-4- 2013, starts from 15-4-2013 and thus all contracts are entitled for the benefi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eceiver Kalpataru was a private limited company. The service receiver has paid service tax under RCM on the balance 50% of the value of taxable service in terms of the said Notification. And thus, the appellant has correctly discharged its liability for the work order under KPTL/.226 BA /12-13/OW /001 dated 5-11-2012. That in respect of the said contract, the entire bill value was subjected to service tax partially in the hands of the appellant and partially by KPTL, partially by Kalpataru under RCM in terms of the Notification 30/2012 ibid, which is evidenced by the chartered accountant certificate issued by Kalpataru, which was produced by the appellant both before the original authority as well as the appellate authority. In other words, the demand upheld is nothing but demand on the portion of bill value on which Kalpataru has already paid service tax under RCM. And therefore, raising the demand once again, ignoring the payment made is not maintained. (v) As regards the work order, KPTL/WO.226 BA/12-13/OW/ 001 dated 30-01-2013 and KPTL/ORAI/FDN/13-14/WONO/02 dated 15-04-2013, as is evident from the terms thereof, the work was executed utilizing material and manpower su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E, Madurai. 2025 (1) TMI 1375-CESTAT CHENNΑΙ M/s Xomox Sanmar Ltd. Versus The Commissioner Of GST & Central Excise Tiruchirapalli, 2025 (1) TMI 1318 CESTAT CHENNAI Uniworth Textiles Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise. Raipur reported in 2013 (288) ELT 161 (S.C) Karur & Singh Vs Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi reported in 1997 (94) ELT 289 (S.C Cosmic Dye Chemical Vs Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in 1995 (75) ELT 721 (SC) reported in 1995 (75) ELT. 721 (S.C) 6. Ms. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Ld. Authorised Representative, appeared on behalf of the respondent and reiterated the findings in the impugned order in appeal. 7. Heard both sides. Perused the appeal records as well as the case laws submitted as relied upon. 8. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the demand of service tax made on the appellant, by denying the classification adopted by the appellant for the services provided, is tenable when the service tax liability on the consideration paid to the appellant for the services provided already stood discharged by the appellant as well as the service receiver under reverse charge me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 501 (Del) and in CC, Kolkata V v. M/s.Gorsia Handicrafts and Design Pvt Ltd, 2020-TIOL-467-CESTAT-KOL, too are on similar lines. Thus, when the CA Certificate evidences that the service receiver has also discharged the service tax liability under reverse charge mechanism and when the appellant too has discharged its liability of applicable percentage, we find considerable force in the appellant's contention that when the entire demand on the consideration received by the appellant stood discharged in this manner, demanding service tax once again would not be tenable. The reliance placed by the appellant on the Letter of the Central Board of Excise and Customs dated 17- 12-2004, in the context of levy of service tax on GTA Services, wherein it has been stated that if service tax due on transportation of a consignment has been paid or is payable by a person liable to pay service tax, service tax should not be charged for the same amount from any other person, to avoid double taxation; would show that the Board itself has cautioned its officers on field against double taxation. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, respectfully following the decisions of the Karnataka High Court and....