9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellants Shri R. Nair, Advocate for the Respondent Per Archana Wadhwa ( for the Bench): Both the appeals filed by the Revenue are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of same impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). 2. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri R.K. Gupta, learned AR appearing for the Revenue and Shri R. Nair, learned Advo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeals filed by the Revenue was rejected. However, learned AR submits that the period involved in the present appeal is from April 2006 to September, 2006. The legal fiction given to the said service for treating the same as output service, as defined in Rule 2(p) was withdrawn with effect from 19.4.06 inasmuch as Explanation to Rule 2(p) was deleted. As such, he submits that as the period invol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of Rule 2(r) of Cenvat Credit Rules. In terms of said sub rule (r), provider of taxable service include a personal liability for paying Service Tax. Inasmuch as the respondent is liable to pay Service Tax in respect of GTA service so received by them, he is required to be treated as provider of taxable service in terms of the said Rule. Consequently, if he is a provider of taxable servi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f identical submissions made on behalf of the assessee has held that recipient of services from the GTA is liable to pay the Service Tax and as such provider of taxable service in terms of Rule 2(r) and consequently gets covered by output service definition as appearing in Rule 2(p) of the Rules. As such, we find that deletion of explanation with effect from 18.4.06 from Rule 2(p) of the Cenvat Cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
