2009 (6) TMI 53

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... material period he was also appointed as part-time adviser. Shri Gochi Mori was paid separately for the technical advice he rendered to the appellant-company. The impugned order affirmed demand of service tax of Rs.44,284.40 found due from the appellants on account of the services received, along with appropriate interest. The demand is in terms of rule 2(d)(1)(iv) of Service Tax Rules 1994 which empowers authorities to collect tax from Indian recipient of services received from a non-resident or from a person abroad .The order of the original authority also had imposed on the appellants a penalty of Rs.200/- per day under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act). The demand of service tax and the penalty imposed are challenged on the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the relevant section at the time of issue of Show Cause Notice, in the absence of allegations of fraud, suppression of facts or willful  mis-statement, the demand for the period beyond the normal period was barred by limitation. An amount of Rs.13,250/- alone could have been demanded validly pursuant to the Show Cause Notice issued on 28.3.2005. These points taken in the appeal are reiterated by the learned counsel during hearing. 2. The learned Jt. CDR fairly submits that the dispute has been decided in favour of the assessees vide a decision of the larger Bench of the Tribunal in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2008 (11) STR 338 (Tri. - LB) and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in U....