9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant Bajaj, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER In this case, the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur vide order-in-original dated 2-8-2007 confirmed service tax demand of Rs. 7,46,373/- against the respondent - M/s. Federal Mogul Sintered Products Ltd., Styal Road, Manchester, U.K. along with interest and also imposed penalty on them under Sections 75A, 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the department has come in appeal. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri R.K. Gupta, ld. SDR assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal in the Revenue's appeal and pleaded that as per provisions of Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994, every person providing taxable service to any person in India shall be liable for servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emsp;We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. The period of dispute in this case is from 1-7-2003 to 31-12-2004. There is no dispute that the service provider is a U.K. based company not having any office or establishment in India, and it has provided the taxable service, in question, to their client in India, M/s. Goeteze (India) Limited. It is alleged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to pay service tax. Subsequently a Notification No. 36/2004-S.T. dated 31-12-2004 effective from 1-1-2005 was issued under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 specifically making the service recipient in India liable to pay service tax when service is received from a non-resident foreign service provider not having any office or business establishment in India. Thus, throughout during the peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
