TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (5) TMI 513
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellants 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 the Revenue and Shri R. Nair, learned Advoc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 The legal fiction given to the said service for treating the same as output service, as defined in Rule 2(p) was withdrawn with effect from 19.4.06 inasmuch as Explanation to Rule 2(p) was deleted. As such, he submits that as the period involv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovisions 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. Consequently, if he is a provider of taxable servic....