2008 (8) TMI 219

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hri R. K. Verma, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per: M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides on the stay petition. 2. A sum of Rs. 55,69,015/- stands demanded as Service tax relating to the period 16-7-1997 to 31-8-1999, besides imposition of penalties. 3. Learned advocate for the purpose of advancing arguments bifurcated the period of demand into two-first period from 16-7-1997 to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he submits that they are not the service provider. As per the amended Section 68 effective from 16-10-1998, no doubt, the liability can be fastened on a person who is other than the service provider, but the same requires a specific Notification under Section 68(2) and during the relevant period, there was no such Notification requiring the recipient to pay the Service tax. In support of this subm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2003. He also submits that in the light of these facts, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd., 2006 (3) S.T.R. 715 (S.C.) = 2005 (187) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.), is not to be applicable to the present case. 5. We have carefully considered the submission from both sides. The scheme has undergone several changes by way of retrospective amendments to the ....