9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of the Commissioner (A) No. 505/2010 dated 27.10.2010. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The respondent claims to have paid excess service tax adopting 12% rate during the period July,2005 to March, 2006, when the rate of tax was only 10%. The excess paid amount amounting to Rs. 1,76,083/- stands adjusted by them while paying service tax for the month of August, 2006. The original author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ign agents as deemed service provider. 4. The Ld. SDR submits that the order of the Commissioner (A) holding that prior to 01.03.07 also the adjustment taken by the respondent should be treated as valid is not legal. He relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of BBC World (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, New Delhi 2009 (14) STR 152 (Tri.- Del.) and the decision of the Tribunal in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Ltd. (cited supra). 5.2 He also submits that since Rule 6 (4A) was introduced in Service Tax Rules on 1.3.07 and since show cause notice has been issued on 9.10.07, the benefit of the said rule should be extended to them. In this context, he relies on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Belgaum 1987 (28) ELT 50 (S.C.). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervices received from foreign agents. If the entire amount of Rs. 1,76,083/- relates to the amount not payable as service tax by the respondents, then the Rule 6 (3) of the Service Tax Rules, shall apply to the respondents. This requires factual verification and therefore, I deem it proper that the matter is considered afresh by the original authority. 7. To enable the same, I set aside th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
