9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. Shri Sameer Chitkara, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - The short question arising for consideration in this appeal is whether, for 'the period September, 2002 to February, 2003, the appellants are liable to pay service tax under the head "consulting engineer's service" to the exchequer in respect of the fee paid by them to two foreign companies (one Japanese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The agreements also laid down the contractor's obligations, one of which was that the contractor should provide training to the appellant's technical personnel for the new system during commissioning. The chief obligation, however, was that the contractor should carry out outside India the basic engineering for the complete revamp and should deliver the relevant documents to the appellant (referre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y w.e.f. 1-6-2007 and therefore the fee paid by the appellants under the relevant agreements was not liable to be taxed even under this category prior to the said date; (d) that the charging Section 66A of the Act empowering levy and collection of Service Tax from the recipients of the services came into force only w.e.f. 18-4-2006 and therefore the appellants were not liable to pay service tax as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2006. Ld. SDR has not been able to distinguish the case of M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (cited supra) from the case on hand. On a perusal of this order of the Larger Bench, we find that, concurring with the view taken by the Tribunal in the cases of M/s. Aditya Cement v. CCE [2007 (7) S.T.R. 153 = 2007 (218) E.L.T. 116] and M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd. v. CCE [2007 (8) S.T.R. 282], the Bench held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
