TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 822
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... service tax demand amounting to Rs.5,80,475/- was confirmed regarding construction carried out by the appellant for M/s. Suryalaxmi Cotton Mills and the demand of service tax of Rs.3,92,599/- was also confirmed for construction by the appellant as sub-contractor alongwith interest and the penalties under various provisions. The demands of service tax of Rs.1,52,52,834/- & Rs.2,85,501/- respectively were dropped by the learned commissioner and are not in issue before us. 2. This appeal challenges the confirmation of demand of service tax for construction of staff quarters by the appellant for M/s. Suryalaxmi Cotton Mills and also for challenging the demand of service tax on the appellant as sub-contractor when, according to appellant, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ldings are not put to commercial or industrial use but constitute a welfare activity unrelated to any business activity. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur vs. Manikgarh Cement; 2010(20) STR 456 (Bom.) and of the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., New Delhi; 2015(37) STR 525 (Tri.-Del.). So far as the liability to pay service tax as sub-contractor is concerned, learned counsel submits that since the principal contractors, M/s. Mall Enterprises and M/s. Mall Constructions had already discharged service tax liability on the entire gross receipts, the appellants were u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as further been expressly clarified by the CBEC Master Circular No. 96/7/2007-ST dated 23.8.2007 and hence fortified by the Larger Bench in Melange Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra). On the issue about invocation of extended period, learned Authorised Representative submits that the plea of a bona fide belief founded on 'conflicting views' was raised for the first time in these proceedings which is a new factual assertion, and does not detract from the correctness of invoking the extended period. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Authorised Representative on behalf of Revenue and perused the case records including the written submissions/ synopsis and the decisions cited at the Bar. Two issues arise for determinat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udgments/orders of superior courts or the appellate authorities. Applying the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Manikgarh Cement (supra), the demand of Rs.5,80,475/- on construction of staff quarters for M/s. Surya laxmi Cotton Mills Ltd. cannot sustain and is hereby set aside. 9. On the second issue regarding liability of the subcontractor to pay service tax, we find force in the appellant's submission on limitation, though not on merits of liability itself. It is now well settled as decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Melange Developers (supra) that a sub-contractor would be liable to pay the service tax irrespective of whether the main contractor has discharged service tax on the same activity. Though o....