9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the view of Notification No.36/2004-ST dated 31.12.04 which deciding the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. [2009 (1) TMI 266 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] that services received from outside India are required to pay service tax w.e.f. 01.01.05. Appellant mentioned in column 11 of the appeal that the period of dispute is March 06 to September 08. On page No.4 in para 2 of the appeal the period mention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xhibition Service. The assessee has not paid service tax for the period from March 2006 to September 2008. On adjudication, the original adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings as he found that the expenditure incurred by the assessee under the category of business exhibition. The services are not sustainable as the period pertains prior to 18.04.06. On appeal filed by the Revenue the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e foreign service provider and that they were receiving services from the foreign party during March 06 to September 08. They neither got registered nor paid service tax. Hon ble Supreme Court has confirmed the view of Notification No.36/2004-ST dated 31.12.04 which deciding the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. [2009 (14) STR J125 (SC)] that services received from outside India are required to pay serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I find that the appellant mentioned in column 11 of the appeal that the period of dispute is March 06 to September 08. On page No.4 in para 2 of the appeal the period mentioned is March 06 to September 06. The learned advocate argued that correct period of dispute is only upto 31.03.06. However, this is not found corroborated from the following documents on record: i) Para 2.1 and 4.2 of OIA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
