9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2005-2006 (up to 31-10-05). The Commissioner found that in view of the Notification No. 8/04-S.T. dated 9-7-04 restricting the exemption available to BAS to sale or purchase of agricultural products, ALL was liable to pay service tax on BAS for the period 9-7-04 to 31-10-05. The appellants thereon paid the service tax due for the period 16-6-05 to 31-3-05 and availed Cenvat credit of the same. This was an amount of Rs. 1,24,48,713/- towards service tax and Rs. 2,48,975/- towards education cess. Adjudicating a Show Cause Notice dated 14-9-07, the Commissioner held that ALL were liable to pay service tax on BAS received by it from commission agents located abroad during the period 9-7-04 to 31-10-05. As per the sub clause (iv) to Rule 2(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayed recovery, or vacated the demand, for service tax received from service providers situated abroad with no office in India for the period prior to 18-4-06. (a) R.N. Oswal Hosiery Factory v. CCE, Ludhiana, 2008 (11) S.T.R. 393 (Tri.-Del.) (b) Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Tirunelveli, 2008 (11) S.T.R. 375 (Tri.-Chen.) (c) Aban Lloyd Offshore Chiles Ltd. v. CST, Chennai, 2008 (11) S.T.R. 298 (Tri.-Chen.) (d) CCE v. Bhandari Hosiery Exports Ltd., 2008 (11) S.T.R. 151 (Tri.-Del.) (e) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh, 2008 (11) S.T.R. 64 (Tri.-Chen.) (f) CCE v. Jindal Steel Power Ltd., 2008 (11) S.T.R. 14 (Tri.-Del.) (g) Birla Textile Mills v. CCE, Chandigarh, 2008 (10) S.T.R. 555 (Tri.-Del.) (h) L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x. It was only as on 27-6-2006, that a Larger Bench of the Tribunal decided in M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2008 (11) S.T.R. 338 (Tri.- LB) = 2008-TIOL-1149-CESTAT-LB that the taxable service provided by a non-resident or from outside India, who does not have any office in India having been specified as taxable service with effect from 1-1-05, under Notification No. 36/04, recipient of such service could not be held liable for paying service tax prior to 1-1-05 notwithstanding the amendment in Rule 2(1)(d) of the STR under Notification No. 12/02 . In the impugned order the Commissioner found that the ratio of several decisions of the Tribunal cited before him was to the effect that taxable service received from p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
