2015 (3) TMI 524

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hri B. B. Sharma, DR ORDER Per: R. K. Singh The appellants M/s Jai Bharat Maruti Ltd. and M/s Hammatsu Pipe Co. Ltd. Japan have filed these appeals against Order-in-Appeal No. 33-34/ST/DLH/2009 dated 28/5/2009 which upheld the Order-in-Original dated 4.10.2007 in terms of which a service tax demand of Rs. 10,23,859/- for the period 1998-99 to 2002-03 under the taxable category of Consulti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pplicable only from 18.4.2006. 2. The ld. DR, merely restated the contentions contained in the Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal. 3. We have considered the contentions of both sides. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order notes as under: "Regarding the submission of the appellants that reliance placed by adjudicating authority o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... responsibility for payment of tax taken by appellants as per agreement. I further find that Service Tax Rules have been framed under powers conferred by Sub Section (1) read with Sub-Section (2) of the Section 94 of the Finance Act, 1994 by the Central Government, therefore it can not be construed that there were no provisions in the Sections for making the recipients liable to pay Service Tax as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t is no longer res-integra that the levy of Service Tax on the recipient of Service under reverse charge mechanism was not legally sustainable prior to 18.4.2006 when Section 66A was introduced in the Finance Act 1994 as has been held, for example, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Bayers Diagnostics 2013 (31) STR 543 (Gujrat) by Gujrat High Court.  It is seen that the period ....