TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1369
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vices to WIPRO Limited. (i) Repair and maintenance of modems and networking equipment. (ii) Maintenance/facilitation of leased lines; upgrading of existing lines, obtaining approval for WAN (Wide Area Networks) 3. In respect of maintenance/facilitation of leased lines, the appellant claims that, as the System Integrators, WIPRO had entrusted work to the appellant to liaising with BSNL, which alone carried out the repair work of the leased lines. Therefore, the appellant has no liability under the Service Tax Act and accordingly did not collect service tax from WIPRO. Consequently, the System Integrator, namely WIPRO had included the consideration paid to the appellant in the total taxable turnover and paid the service t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the main contractor had discharged the service tax liability? 6. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the appellant carries out the facilitation, internal cabling and modem maintenance. The work order given by WIPRO which includes leased line testing, line commissioning and submission of documents for the lines but confines to identify, zero-in the possible fault locations and convey the system integrator (BSNL) to carry out the maintenance or repair work on the basis of such inputs given by the appellant. It is argued that the Department had misinterpreted the role of the appellant and assumed that the appellant was providing 'Management, Maintenance and Repair Services.' The assessee is only as a sub-contrac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Services vs. Commissioner of Central Tax Visakhapatnam- I, reported (2024) 20 Centax 262 (Tri.Hyd). 4. Max Logistics Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur reported in 2017 (47) S.T.R 41 (Tri.Del). 9. Heard Mr.K.Jayachandran, Learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.R.Sundar, Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent. Records perused. 10. The specific contention of the appellant is that, as a sub-contractor to system integrator for the maintenance of leased lines, they were provided only an insignificant portion of the work when compared to the overall contract work of the Management, Maintenance or Repair services undertaken by the system integrators from the customers. Hence, there is no privity of con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ow cause notice and facilitate M/s.WIPRO Limited and others to avail the CENVAT credit as per the Rules. 14. Regarding waiver of penalty by the Appellate Authority, the Learned Counsel for the Department submitted that the imposition of penalty is at the discretion of the authority. Mere waiver of penalty will not exonerate the assessee from suppression and the tax liability demanded during the extended period. He further contended that the order from WIPRO given to the assessee/appellant is the work order for Maintenance, Management and Repair services of the leased line and the equipment used in relation to the leased line. 15. Though it is contended by the appellant that the contract is only a general contract and not for Maintenan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he extended period for demand is sustainable. The Tribunal, exercising its discretion under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, had waived the penalty imposed on the assessee under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. For granting such waiver, the Tribunal relied upon the certificate of payment of service tax on the entire consideration, which is inclusive of consideration paid to the appellant. 19. This Court to know the breakup of the service tax paid by WIPRO and to ascertain whether it covers the service tax payable by the assessee gave time to the Learned Counsel for the appellant to produce the break up of service tax paid. However, the break up from WIPRO was not produced despite sufficient opportunity and time. Therefore, the be....