2012 (12) TMI 273

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 27.03.2008, 28.03.2008(two), 31.03.2008(five) - all passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jamshedpur. The issue involved in these Appeals is common. Therefore, they are taken up together for disposal. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Appellant are having their factory/plant at Jamshedpur. During the period from 01.04.99 to 31.03.04, the Appellant were receiving design and drawing, supervision services and supervision for engineering/manufacturing activities in India from various companies located outside the territory of India, under their expansion plan of their steel plant. These services were received by the Appellant from the Foreign Service provider who did not have any office in India. DGCEI ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2010 (18) STR 713 (P&H); (affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner vs. Bhandari Hosiery Exports 2010 (20) STR J 99 (SC);     (iii) Unitech Ltd. vs. CST 2009 (15) STR 385 (Del.) (affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner vs. Unitech Ltd. 2011 (24) STR J 135 (SC);     (iv) CST vs. Quintiles Data Processing Centre (I) P. Ltd. 2011 (23) STR 15 (Guj);     (vi) Polyspin Exports Ltd. vs. UOI 2011 (22) STR 9 (Mad);     (vi) CST vs. SKF India Ltd. 2010 (18) STR 388 (Kar). 4.1. The contention of the Appellant is that it is also settled that even if the agreement between the service provider and the service recipient, the servic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as clearly laid down that the imposition of the service tax is on the persons rendering the services and by making a provision in the Rules, levy of tax cannot be shifted to the recipients of the services and the Rule framed which brought about this situation has been declared by the Supreme Court to be invalid. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgment in Laghu Udyog (supra) is squarely applicable to Rule 2(1)(d)(iv), which is relied on in this case. It appears that it is first time when the Act was amended and Section 66A was inserted by Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 18-4-2006, the Respondents got legal authority to levy service tax on the recipients of the taxable service. Now, because of the enactment of Section 66A, a person wh....