9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. At the time of hearing significant legal points involved were brought to our notice both by the learned Consultant and also the learned departmental representative. The learned Consult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 16-8-2002 the liability to pay Service Tax for the services received from a company abroad is on the recipient. This view has been taken in the case of Sam cor Glass Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-I - 2007(8) S.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... '. 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 notification repeating the contents of clause (iv) under sub-heading (B). The learned Single Member has, however, taken a different view, while the Division Bench has not taken into consideration the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 business or has a fixed establishment from which the service is provided or to be provided, or has his permanent address or usual place of residence, in a country other than India and such service is received or to be r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
