2026 (2) TMI 433

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arch, 2012 by invoking the extended period of limitation. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a Proprietorship Concern and was registered with the Service Tax Authorities having Registration No. AAUPL4410BST001 for providing taxable services under the category of 'mining service'. The appellant was providing mining service to M/s. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited [ONGC], Ankleshwar Assets/Cauvery Asset, M/s. Varun Industries Ltd., Mumbai and M/s. Sitaram Energy and Logistics Limited, Kolkata as a sub-contractor. During the impugned period, the appellant had paid the Service Tax on the amount received from ONGC, but did not pay Service Tax on the amounts received from M/s. Varun Industries Limited, Mumbai and M/s. Sita....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hin the ambit of 65(105)(zzzzy) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the said services rendered by them. 5. The matter was adjudicated vide the impugned order dated 11.06.2014 wherein the demand of Service Tax, as proposed in the Notice, was confirmed against the appellant, along with interest thereon. The ld. adjudicating authority also imposed penalties on the appellant under Sections 77 and 78 of the Act. 5.1. Against the said order, the appellant is before us. 6. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has challenged the impugned demand on the ground of limitation. It is his submission that the scope of the issue of liability of a sub-contractor to Service Tax when the main contractor had discharged the Service Tax liabili....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner of C.Ex. & S.T., Jaipur-I [2019 (25) G.S.T.L. 45 (Tri. - Del.)] 6.1. In view of the above submissions, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant contends that the invocation of extended period of limitation is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue appearing before us reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He referred to the Master Circular issued by the Board bearing No. 96/7/2007-S.T. dated 23.08.2007, wherein it has been clarified that even when the principal contractor discharges the liability to Service Tax, a sub-contractor shall be liable to pay Service Tax in respect of the services rendered by such sub-contractor. Accordingly, he j....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... would have to discharge the service tax liability even if the main contractor had discharged the service tax liability. 15. The issue as to whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked in such a situation when there are conflicting views of the Tribunal on a particular issue has been considered by the Supreme Court in various decisions. 16. In Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2002 (146) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) = 2002 taxmann.com 171 (S.C.) the Supreme Court held that when there are divergent views of High Courts, there can be a bona fide doubt as to whether the activity would amount to manufacture and in such circumstances it cannot be urged that there was misstatement or s....