2009 (8) TMI 738

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sh, Managing Partner, for the Appellant. Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. Shri D. Mukesh, Managing Partner appearing on behalf of the appellants states that the adjudicating Commissioner has remanded the matter for the period prior to 19-4-2006 and hence there can be no requirement for predeposit for the first pe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f C.Ex.& Cus., Vadodara v. Schott Glass India Pvt. Ltd. - 2009 (14) S.T.R. 146 (Guj.) (2)     Commissioner of C.Ex., Noida v. Matsushita TV & Audio India Ltd. - 2006 (1) S.T.R. 162 (Tri.-Del.) (3)     Lumax Samlip Industries v. Commissioner of Service Tax - 2007 (6) S.T.R. 417 (Tri.-Chennai). 2. We have heard Ms. Indira Sisupal, ld. DR on behalf of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d. As regards the subsequent period from 19-4-06, the decisions cited by the appellants are prima facie of no help. As per these decisions, if the service was not taxable before a particular date, the value of service received after that date cannot be subjected to tax. As such, these decisions are relevant for deciding taxability for the period prior to introduction of a new tax. In the case of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X