https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115410 The appellants were found not liable to pay service tax as recipients of services for machinery installation and commissioning imported from a foreign company. The court determined that the liability for the disputed period fell on the foreign service provider company, not the appellants, as the amendment to Rule 6 shifted the responsibility to the recipient of the service after the relevant period. The agreement between the parties did not establish the appellants as authorized agents responsible for the service tax, leading to the decision to set aside the previous order and allow the appeal with consequential relief. en-us Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 May 2012 14:29:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115410 The appellants were found not liable to pay service tax as recipients of services for machinery installation and commissioning imported from a foreign company. The court determined that the liability for the disputed period fell on the foreign service provider company, not the appellants, as the amendment to Rule 6 shifted the responsibility to the recipient of the service after the relevant period. The agreement between the parties did not establish the appellants as authorized agents responsible for the service tax, leading to the decision to set aside the previous order and allow the appeal with consequential relief. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115410