2006 (10) TMI 503

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Appellant. Shri A.K.J. Nambiar and Smt. Rukmani Menon, Advocates, for the Respondent. ORDER Both these Revenue appeals are on the same issue and hence they are taken up together as per law. 2.  Revenue is aggrieved  with the OIA No. 24/2004 dated 16-8-2004 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Service Tax raised by the Revenue under the category of Consultin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2001-2002 on the basis of an agreement. This agreement is on a principal to principal basis setting out the terms and conditions in implementing the projects. It is only in August 2002, that the liability to pay service tax in such cases shifted from the service provider to the service receivers. The lower authority has not properly appreciated this aspect as seen from the impugned order. The low....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ew has the support of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati v. Union of India [1994 (112) E.L.T. 365(S.C.)]. Where the service provider is a foreign company and has no office in India does Rule 6(1) of the Service Tax Rule enjoin upon the service receiver to pay the tax. But this is applicable from August 2002 only. In that case no tax liability can be saddled on the appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dia Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai - 2006 (3) S.T.R. 716 (Tri.) = 2005 (188) E.L.T. 166 (Tri.-Mumbai). The learned Counsel submits that the issue is decided in assessees' favour by all the benches of the Tribunal and, therefore, the impugned order, as extracted supra, is required to be confirmed. 4. The learned JDR defended the departmental view. 5. The learned Counsel Smt. Rukmani Menon reli....