TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1802
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d civil structures. (b) Maintenance or Repair Services. (c) Man Power Recruitment Agency Services. 1.1 On the basis of an intelligence that the appellants were liable to pay service tax, an enquiry was initiated against the appellant by the Preventive Officers of the Central Excise and Service Tax, Division-I, Bhilai. It was found that the appellant, admittedly, had provided taxable services to M/s. HSCL during the period prior to October' 2009 i.e. during the Financial Year 2007-08 and 2008-09 (up to Sept' 2009) but did not get themselves registered with the department prior to 15th Sept. 2009; they have not paid the due service tax on the value of taxable services on amount/consideration i.e., gross value received as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t thereto that the Order-in-Original bearing No. 60/2019 dated 27.02.2020 has been passed again confirming the proposal of the show cause notice. Being aggrieved of the said order, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. We have heard Shri Ashok Nawal, learned CA for the appellant and Ms. Jaya Kumari and Shri Shashank Yadav, learned Authorized Representative for the department. 3. Learned CA for the appellant has submitted that the lower authorities cannot disregard or exceed the directions given in remand orders by higher forums and relied upon the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Nizam Sugars Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam reported as 2006 (202) ELT 326 (Tri.-Bang.) and Raj Kumar Mundra Vs. Commiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted as 1996 (88) ELT 12 (SC) With these submissions, the order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed. 4. While rebutting these submissions, Learned Departmental Representative has submitted that the adjudicating authority has completely followed the directions of remand in the final order of this Tribunal dated 07.05.2018. The appellant is seeking relief merely relying on the basis of copy of the Certificate issued by M/s. HSCL on 28.11.2013. The uncorroborated Certificate issued by M/s. HSCL on 28.11.2013 was neither brought to the notice of the department nor it was relied upon by the appellant during the proceedings before the first adjudicating authority at the time of issuance of the first O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir service tax liabilities. Further, every person (including persons providing service as sub-contractor), who renders taxable service is individually liable to pay tax, notwithstanding the fact that the main contractor discharged service tax on the entire amount. Thus, even assuming but not admitting that M/s HSCL had discharged its service tax liability, it cannot have any bearing on the statutory liability of the appellant. The payment of service tax by the appellant would not lead to double taxation as the main contractor i.e. M/s. HSCL would be entitled to CENVAT credit of such service tax paid. The appellant was thus liable to discharge the service tax on the services provided by them to M/s. HSCL which was not discharged by them in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... He further submitted that M/s HSCL has already made payment of service tax on behalf of the appellant. Hence, he submitted that the Revenue was not justified in making the demand of service tax once again on the appellant. He submitted that the copies of the challans can be produced for verification in this regard. He also submitted that in respect of another case - M/s Farhat Construction vs. CCE&ST, Raipur vide Final Order No. 55615/2017 dated 21.07.2017, in respect of another subcontractor of M/s HSCL, the issue has been remanded for verification of the payment of service tax by M/s HSCL. 6. After considering the submissions made by both sides and on perusal of record, we find that the claim of the appellant is that for the ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Naveen Kumar. Details of Service Tax collected by Naveen Kumar is given below: _____________________ 2009-10 - Rs. 714745.00 2010-11 - Rs. 337277.00 Total - Rs. 10,52,022.00 4.7 From above, it is observed that M/s HSCL have clearly stated that they have paid only Rs.10,52,022/- as Service Tax to the Noticee. Thu, it is evident that M/s HSCL has not claimed that they have deposited the balance Service Tax liability "on behalf of the Noticee". It is pertinent to mention here that, prior to issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 18/19.10.2012, during the course of investigation when M/s HSCL was asked to provide break-up of service tax paid in respect of various sub-contractors, M/s HSCL vide its letter dated 24.09.2012, ex....