https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272106 A challenge to the show cause notice and to the second proviso to Rule 6 and Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 failed because the Supreme Court had already settled that a service recipient could be made liable for service tax and interest where the provider had no independent office in India; the dispute as to the levy period was left to the notice proceedings. On maintainability, the Court held that a dispute on whether royalty, technical assistance, and related consideration formed part of the taxable value directly raised taxability and a question having relation to the rate of duty, so a High Court appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not lie and the proper remedy was under Section 35L. en-us Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 May 2016 11:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272106 A challenge to the show cause notice and to the second proviso to Rule 6 and Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 failed because the Supreme Court had already settled that a service recipient could be made liable for service tax and interest where the provider had no independent office in India; the dispute as to the levy period was left to the notice proceedings. On maintainability, the Court held that a dispute on whether royalty, technical assistance, and related consideration formed part of the taxable value directly raised taxability and a question having relation to the rate of duty, so a High Court appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not lie and the proper remedy was under Section 35L. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272106