TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atagiri, Advocate, for the Appellant. Smt. R. Bhagya Devi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - After examining the records, we note that the appellants had received certain services from a few foreign companies under agreements executed between them, that these services were received during the period February 1999 to 15-8-2002, that these services were designated as 'consulting engineer's service' by the Department and that service tax of over Rs. 41 lakhs was demanded from the appellants by the lower authorities. Penalties were also imposed on the parties. The lower appellate authority relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in CCE, Trivandrum v. Kerala State Electricity Board - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived by the foreign companies from the appellants as consideration for the services rendered by the former were to be borne by the appellants. It is pointed out that this provision was misunderstood by the lower appellate authority as the appellants having been authorized by the foreign companies to pay service tax on their behalf. Contextually, it is also pointed out that, in the agreement between KSEB and the Canadian company, there was not even such a provision, but, on the other hand, there was a provision for the Canadian company to discharge service tax liability. According to the learned counsel, this provision was not correctly appreciated in KSEB's case. He would go to the extent of saying that the decision of the Hon'ble High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he above provision of the contracts. As a matter of fact, there is a judgment of the Tribunal's Larger Bench to the effect that a service recipient is liable to pay service tax only from 1-1-2005 vide Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2008 (11) S.T.R. 339 (Tri.-LB). The old decision of the Tribunal in Navinon Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-VI - 2006 (3) S.T.R. 397 (Tri.-Mumbai) = 2004 (172) E.L.T. 400 (Tri.-Mumbai) also appears to support the present appellant's case. In that case, the amendments brought to Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 as well as the provisions of the agreement between the assessee and the foreign company were examined by the Bench and it was held that the ame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
