9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Service Tax on the appellant who is actually the recipient of management services from a company which is situated abroad. The period of dispute is from 3/2003 to 3/2004. The amount involved is Rs.8,32,391/-. The lower authority confirmed the demand. The appellants approached the Commissioner (A) who also upheld the lower authority's order as far as the demand of Service Tax on the Management Fee paid by the appellant to the service provider abroad is concerned. The appellants aggrieved over the decision of the Commissioner (A) have approached this Tribunal for relief. 3. Shri P.J Joseph, learned Consultant, appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri K.Sambi Reddi, departmental representative for the Revenue. 4. We heard both sides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as follows: "The Rule are subservient to the sections and if section do not provide for discharge of Service Tax by recipient of services from non-resident having no office, then it would be a futile exercise to rely upon the Rules to collect the tax." This decision was followed by the Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Raigad - 2007 (8) S.T.R. 282 (Tri- Mumbai) = 2007-TIOL-399-CESTAT-Mumbai. 6.1 On the other hand, it was pointed out by the learned departmental representative that the Tribunal presided, over by the Hon'ble President of CES TAT in the case of Calvin Wooding Consulting Ltd. v. CCE, Indore - 2007 (7) S.T.R. 411 (Tri.-Del) has taken a contrary view wherein it has been held that with effect from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This clause is clearly relatable to the provisions of Section 68(2), which contemplates making of such provision under the Rules, as is clear from the word "pre scribed", which means 'prescribed under the rules'. Therefore, when an omnibus provision was made by incorporating (iv) in Rule 2(d) of the Ser vice Tax Rules, under which every service receiver became liable to pay Service Tax in relation to any taxable service provided by non-resident, who did not have office in India, to such person receiving taxable service in India, in the relevant period during the currency of clause (iv) of Rule 2(d) making the recipient of every taxable service liable, the statutory effect, so created, cannot be reduced by reference to a subsequently issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of tax and also of the penalty amounts. If the deposit is not so made, the appeal, in which default is committed, will stand dismissed. Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly." Further, the appellant has argued that even though Central Government had notified the person liable to pay Service Tax by amending the Service Tax Rules with effect from 16-8-2002, there existed no provision in the Act so as to deem the service rendered by a non-resident as taxable services of the service recipient. It was only in Finance Act, 2005 that the Central Government inserted an explanation to the definition of taxable service in Section 65(105) so as to include "any service provider or to be provided by a person, who has established a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
