Harikrishna Pankajkumar Gopani vs Cgst & Central Excise Surat on 15 May, 2026
4. Countering the argument, learned AR mentions that in this case, period
of dispute is from February 2016 to December 2016 and the show cause notice
was issued on 30.08.2018. Therefore, it is within the normal period. His case
that the issue regarding payment of service tax by the sub-contractor was
clarified by CBIC in their circular issued in August, 2007. No doubt, there was
a confusion prior to that but after issue of this master circular, there should
have been no confusion in anybody's mind that sub-contractor has to pay
service tax even though the main contractor has paid the service tax. This is
to ensure smooth flow of Cenvat credit. Besides reiterating the findings of the
lower authority, he relies on the decision of CESTAT Delhi in the case of Shri
Rahul Agarwal Vs. Commissioner of CGST, Customs and Central excise,
Jabalpur reported at 2025-TIOL-1368-CESTAT-DEL. He prays that the decision
of learned Commissioner (Appeals) may be upheld and the appeal filed by the
appellant be set aside.