2008 (11) TMI 26

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ervice’ with effect from 1.1.2005, under notification No. 36/2004, recipient of such service could not be held liable for paying service tax prior to 1.1.2005 notwithstanding the amendment in rule 2(1)(d) of ST Rules under notification no. 12/2004 - 216 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 19-11-2008 - Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) and P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Ms. Tejswani, Advocate for the Appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... India. The learned advocate placed reliance on Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur [2008 (TIOL) 1149 CESTAT (Delhi-LB)]. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below: "16. In fairness to the learned SDR we must mention that a rather detailed argument was made on the rules of interpretation; he also cited decisions to support his .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... assessee and it is held that as a recipient of the 'consulting engineer' service from outside India, the appellant was not liable to pay service tax prior to 1.1.2005." 3. Respectfully following the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd.(supra), we find that the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X