TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prior to the period 5-3-2004. - Held that:- It is an undisputed position that prior to 5-3-2004 the respondent was not an output service provider. It became an output service provider subsequent to that date after it entered into a MOU with M/s. Vallab Steels Ltd. for rendering output service. If prior to the same, the Respondent paid Service Tax on the ground that M/s. JFE Engineering Corporation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto force on 10-9-2004 much after the period in question prior to 5-3-2004. - Credit not allowed - Decided against the assessee - In favor of revenue. - Tax Case No. 56 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 19-2-2015 - Navin Sinha, ACJ and P. Sam Koshy, J. Ms. Smriti Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri B.D. Guru, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Navin Sinha, ACJ.]. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Service Tax paid prior to 5-3-2004? 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding that during the relevant period, the services for which the Respondent has paid Service Tax, it would be deemed to be an output service provider under Rule 2(p) of the Rules. Rule 2(p) came into force on 10-9-2004 and is prospective in operation. The service tax paid by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant received Service Tax payments from the Respondent as a deemed output service provider, to which they were legitimately not entitled to and there was no time limit for availing the Cenvat credit with respect to Service Tax dues paid, the Tribunal committed no error by granting relief to the respondent treating it as a deemed output service provider under Rule 2(p) of the Rules. 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9-2004 only, and not having been made retrospective in operation, the Tribunal erred in holding that during the relevant period prior to 5-3-2004, the respondent would be deemed to be an output service provider under Rule 2(p) giving it retrospective effect. The Tribunal therefore erred in ultimately holding that availment of credit was permissible in view of the subsequent extended definition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
