Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Dns Contractor vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 10 February, 2014

Murari Lal Singhal vs Jaipur-I on 25 January, 2019

This clause from the letter of M/s GEA dated 26.06.2008 makes it clear that the payment as was agreed included tax and duties. It is clear that on the amount received (which was inclusive of taxes) the liability has already been discharged. It becomes clear that as a sub 12 ST/55621/2013 contractor, the appellant has not received any other amount than the amount which already was inclusive of tax. The liability thereupon has already been discharged by the main contractor i.e. M/s GEA. Hence, the appellant sub contractor has wrongly been held liable by the Commissioner qua such payment which stands already made by the main contractor. We draw our support from the case DNS Contractor Vs. C.C.E., Delhi 2015 (51) G.S.T. 636 wherein it was held that where the principal contractor had paid service tax on entire consideration, same demand cannot be enforced on sub contractor. Such demand is barred by the principle of revenue neutrality. The Order to that extent is also therefore set aside.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Synergy Geotech P Ltd vs Cce Nagpur- I on 19 August, 2025

2. According to Learned Chartered Account appearing for the appellant, discharge of tax liability by the principal manufacturer precludes any liability on sub-contractors and relied upon the decision ST/85635/2017 3 of the Tribunal in DNS Contractor v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi - I [(2015) 58 taxmann.com 154 (New Delhi - CESTAT)]. It was further contended that neither was any tax charged in the bill raised on the principal contractor nor did the principal contractor charge any enhanced value towards consideration for service. It was also contended that, in any case, the entire exercise was 'revenue neutral' owing to which the tax liability would not devolve on the appellant.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harikrishna Pankajkumar Gopani vs Cgst & Central Excise Surat on 15 May, 2026

• There is no service tax liability on the sub-contractor where service tax has already been paid by the principal contractor. Demanding service tax again from the sub-contractor amounts to double taxation on same contract(s). When the government has already received tax amount, payment by them and again its Cenvat credit by the principal contractor becomes a revenue neutral situation. They rely on CESTAT Delhi decision in the case of M/s DNS Contractor Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I 2015 (37) S.T.R. 848 (Tri-Delhi) wherein it has been held that as service tax on the entire contract value has been discharged by the principal contractor, there
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Sailaja Industries vs Cce, C & St, Visakhapatnam-Ii on 9 December, 2016

4. The Ld. Counsel pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not go into the entire contentions raised by the appellants, but has simply confined to the issue whether the appellant is liable to discharge service tax when the main contractor has paid the service tax. Though the appellant had raised the contention that service tax is not liable to be paid on fabrication works and also that the valuation of the taxable services should not include the receivables, VAT etc., the same was not considered at all by the authorities below. He therefore requested remand of the matter to consider these contentions raised by the appellant. Further, that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in relying upon the Board Circular to conclude that appellant as a sub-contractor has to pay service tax even though service tax is discharged by main contractor. The Ld. Counsel relied upon the decision laid in the case of M/s DNS Contractor Vs CCE, Delhi [2015 (37) STR 848 (Tri.-Del)], M/s West Coast India Constructions Vs CCE & ST [2014-TIOL-2699-CESTAT-BANG] and Nana Lal Suthar Vs CCE, Jaipur-I [2015-TIOL-2357-CESTAT-DEL] to convass the proposition that when the main contractor has discharged the service tax liability the sub-contractor is absolbed from the liability to pay tax on the same services.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Orient Paper Mills vs Jabalpur on 18 November, 2024

3.1 It is further submitted that Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value), Rules 2006 (hereinafter called as Valuation Rules) for including the value of services provided by independent contractors in the value of contract executed with TOSCOTEC was erroneously invoked in the present case. Such inclusion is alleged as double taxation. The confirmation of demand is prayed to set aside. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of DNS Contractor Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi reported as 2015 (37) S.T.R. 848 (Tribunal - Del.)
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1