2012 (5) TMI 513

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....J. Shri R.K. Gupta, AR for the Appellants   Shri R. Nair, Advocate for the Respondent   Per Archana Wadhwa ( for the Bench):   Both the appeals filed by the Revenue are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of same impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals).   2. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri R.K. Gupta, learned AR appearing for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ported as [2010 (19) STR 166 (P& H)], when the appeals filed by the Revenue was rejected. However, learned AR submits that the period involved in the present appeal is from April 2006 to September, 2006. The legal fiction given to the said service for treating the same as output service, as defined in Rule 2(p) was withdrawn with effect from 19.4.06 inasmuch as Explanation to Rule 2(p) was deleted....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....effect inasmuch as no amendment was made to the provisions of Rule 2(r) of Cenvat Credit Rules. In terms of said sub rule (r), provider of taxable service include a personal liability for paying Service Tax. Inasmuch as the respondent is liable to pay Service Tax in respect of GTA service so received by them, he is required to be treated as provider of taxable service in terms of the said Rule. Co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ajasthan Syntex Ltd. referred supra has taken note of identical submissions made on behalf of the assessee has held that recipient of services from the GTA is liable to pay the Service Tax and as such provider of taxable service in terms of Rule 2(r) and consequently gets covered by output service definition as appearing in Rule 2(p) of the Rules. As such, we find that deletion of explanation with....