Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Sailakshmi Enterprises vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 17 July, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
BANGALORE
Application(s) Involved:
ST/Stay/20271/2014 in ST/20283/2014-DB
Appeal(s) Involved:
ST/20283/2014-DB
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 34/2013 dated 15/10/2013, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, VISAKHAPATNAM-II]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No
3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes
M/s Sailakshmi Enterprises
Door No.31-60-06, Hig1-141, Phase-06, Greenlands Colony, Kurmannapalem,
VISAKHAPATNAM 530046. Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Visakhapatnam-II
CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING,
PORT AREA,
VISAKHAPATNAM, - 530035. Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Ms. Nisha Bineesh, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagdish, A.R. For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 17/07/2015 Date of Decision: 17/07/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 21662 / 2015 PER ARCHANA WADHWA After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit, we proceed to decide the appeal itself inasmuch as the issue lies in a narrow compass and is stands decided by the Tribunal.
2. The appellant is engaged in providing services of Site Formation to the principal contractor. The proceedings stand initiated against the appellant by invoking longer period of limitation proposing service tax on the said activities. The appellant took categorical stands before the low authorities that inasmuch as they provided the services to main contractor who has discharged the liability of the entire value, the second time demand for the same activity would not arise. For the above proposition, the appellant relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal.
3. It is seen from the impugned order that the Commissioner did not advert to the said plea of the appellant and confirmed the demand along with interest on the merits of the case.
4. We find that the issue is no longer res integra inasmuch as the Tribunal in a catena of the judgments held that if the entire service tax liability stands discharged by the principal contractor, no additional liability would arise on the sub-contractor. Reference can be made to the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of (i) S.N. Computer Services vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow [2013 (30) S.T.R. 670 (Tri.-Del.)]; (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III vs. Akruti Projects [2015 (37) S.T.R. 348 (Tri.-Mum)]; (iii) DNS Contractor Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi [2015 (37) STR 848 (Tri.-Del.)] as also to the Larger Bench decision in the case of Vijay Sharma & Co. & Others Vs. CCE, Chandigarh [2010-TIOL-1215-CESTAT-DEL (L.B.)].
In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for examining the above claim of the appellant. Needless to say that the appellant would place on record all the requisite documents to establish that the entire service tax liability on the full contracted value stands discharged by the principal contractor. Stay petition as also appeal get disposed of in the above manner.
(Pronounced in open court) (ASHOK KUMAR ARYA) TECHNICAL MEMBER (ARCHANA WADHWA) JUDICIAL MEMBER /vc/