9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct that, the services of foreign service provider were received in India by the present applicant. The principal contention, which is raised before us for seeking waiver of pre-deposit in the stay applications made in these two appeals, is that, since the Notification under Section 68(2) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 was issued on 31st December, 2004 (Notification No. 36/2003-Service Tax) (sic) (36/2004-S.T.), which came into force on 1-1-2005, by which taxable services were notified for the purposes of Section 68(2), there was no liability on the part of the applicant in respect of taxable services, if any, received from a foreign service provider to the applicant during the period prior to the coming into force of the said Notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment submitted that, Service Tax was payable by the receiver by virtue of Rule 2(d)(iv), which was notified in Official Gazette by Notification No. 12/02 dated 1-8-2002. It was submitted that, this Rule was inserted in exercise of powers under Section 4(2)(1) of the Act under which it was provided by clause (a) that, such Rules nay be framed providing for collection and recovery of Service Tax under Sections 66 and 68. 5. Section 68(1) imposed liability to pay Service Tax on every person providing taxable service to any person. Under sub-section (2) of Section 68, it was provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in respect of any taxable service notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette, the se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very taxable service liable, the statutory effect, so created, cannot be reduced by reference to a subsequently issued notification repeating the contents of clause (iv) under sub-heading (B). The learned Single Member has however, taken a different view, while the Division Bench has not taken into consideration the provisions of Rule 2(d)(iv) of the Rules. In view of these decisions, however, a debatable point arises and we do not want to pre-empt the course of referring the matter to a Larger Bench that may be adopted by the Bench hearing this appeal, since we are at present concerned only with the question of waiver of pre-deposit at this stage. As it appears to us that, clause (iv) of Rule 2(d) created a liability on every recipient of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
