9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 650X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion agents during the period 2004-2005 & 2005-2006 (up to 31-10-05). The Commissioner found that in view of the Notification No. 8/04-S.T. dated 9-7-04 restricting the exemption available to BAS to 'sale or purchase of agricultural products,' ALL was liable to pay service tax on BAS for the period 9-7-04 to 31-10-05. The appellants thereon paid the service tax due for the period 16-6-05 to 31-3-05 and availed Cenvat credit of the same. This was an amount of Rs. 1,24,48,713/- towards service tax and Rs. 2,48,975/- towards education cess. Adjudicating a Show Cause Notice dated 14-9-07, the Commissioner held that ALL were liable to pay service tax on BAS received by it from commission agents located abroad during the period 9-7-04 to 31-10-05 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal had waived predeposit and stayed recovery, or vacated the demand, for service tax received from service providers situated abroad with no office in India for the period prior to 18-4-06. (a) R.N. Oswal Hosiery Factory v. CCE, Ludhiana, 2008 (11) S.T.R. 393 (Tri.-Del.) (b) Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. CCE, Tirunelveli, 2008 (11) S.T.R. 375 (Tri.-Chen.) (c) Aban Lloyd Offshore Chiles Ltd. v. CST, Chennai, 2008 (11) S.T.R. 298 (Tri.-Chen.) (d) CCE v. Bhandari Hosiery Exports Ltd., 2008 (11) S.T.R. 151 (Tri.-Del.) (e) VMT Spinning Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh, 2008 (11) S.T.R. 64 (Tri.-Chen.) (f) CCE v. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., 2008 (11) S.T.R. 14 (Tri.-Del.) (g) Birla Textile Mills v. CCE, Chandigarh, 2008 (10) S.T.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to service tax. It was only as on 27-6-2006, that a Larger Bench of the Tribunal decided in M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur reported in 2008 (11) S.T.R. 338 (Tri.- LB) = 2008-TIOL-1149-CESTAT-LB "that the 'taxable service' provided by a non-resident or from outside India, who does not have any office in India having been specified as 'taxable service' with effect from 1-1-05, under Notification No. 36/04, recipient of such service could not be held liable for paying service tax prior to 1-1-05 notwithstanding the amendment in Rule 2(1)(d) of the STR under Notification No. 12/02". In the impugned order the Commissioner found that the ratio of several decisions of the Tribunal cited before him was to the effect that taxable service re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
