9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not considered the issue of Section 66A and also the issue of striking down of the provisions of Explanation to Section 65(105) of Finance Act, 1994. He has also not considered the Board's Circular dt.26.09.2011. It is also observed that the payment of ₹ 1,57,087.00 had been made by the Appellant during the period 01.04.2006 to 30.06.2006, whereas it is not clear from the facts when the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the ground that the subject services were provided by M/s Cockerill Mechanical Industries, Belgium to the Appellant and that the service provider did not have any premises in India. The Appellant, therefore, contends that no Service Tax is payable in the instant case. 2. Heard both sides. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant takes us through Para 6.2 of the impugned Order-in-Origin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the service was rendered in 1991 when the agreement with M/s Cockerill Mechanical Industries, Belgium was signed. He relied upon the various case laws especially in the case of Modi-Munidpharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Meerut - 2009 (15) STR 713 (Tri-Del), wherein it was held that the relevant date would be the date of rendering of service. 3. On the other hand, the learned Authorised Representative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have to be examined by the Adjudicating authority. Therefore, we are constrained to remand the matter back to the Adjudicating authority. We make it clear that we are not expressing any views on the merits of the case and all issues are kept open. The Adjudicating authority will consider the matter afresh, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellant. 5. The appeal is dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
