Appeal allowed: Service tax demand set aside due to lack of authority pre-Section 66A interpretation.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order confirming the service tax demand. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, precedents, and the absence of authority to levy service tax on the import of services before the enactment of Section 66A.

---

---

Issues:
1. Early hearing of appeal requested by the appellant.
2. Taxability of services provided by the parent company to the appellant.
3. Applicability of service tax under reverse charge mechanism.
4. Interpretation of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 2004.
5. Pre-Section 66A scenario regarding levy of service tax on import of service.
6. Judicial precedents related to the taxability of import of services.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking early hearing of the appeal, which was allowed by the Tribunal considering the interest of justice. The issue in dispute was deemed not res integra based on previous judgments. Both parties consented to the appeal being heard on the same day, leading to the passing of the present order.

2. The appellant, engaged in providing "Maintenance or Repair Service," entered into a Sales Commission Agreement with its parent company for various services. The Department contended that these services should be classified under "Business Auxiliary Service" and held the appellant liable to pay service tax under Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 2004. The impugned order confirmed a service tax demand, which the appellant challenged before the Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal examined the applicability of service tax under the reverse charge mechanism for services received from the parent company located abroad. The impugned order referred to Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) to justify the tax demand, which was contested by the appellant.

4. The interpretation of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 2004 was crucial in determining the tax liability of the appellant for the services received from the parent company. The Tribunal analyzed this rule in light of the arguments presented by both parties.

5. The appellant argued that before the enactment of Section 66A, there was no authority to levy service tax on the import of services. Citing judicial precedents, including the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Indian National Shipowners Association, the appellant contended that the demands confirmed under the taxable category of Business Auxiliary Service for the specified period could not be sustained.

6. The Tribunal considered previous judgments, including those of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, which clarified the authority to levy service tax on the import of services. Relying on these precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, given the settled position of law regarding the taxability of import of services.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order confirming the service tax demand. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, precedents, and the absence of authority to levy service tax on the import of services before the enactment of Section 66A.

---