TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demands of Service Tax of Rs. 1,49,347/- in S.T./Appeal No. 223 of 2007 and Rs. 17,330/- in S.T./Appeal No. 224 of 2007; and imposed penalty of the like amounts under Sections 76 and 78 respectively. 2. There is no dispute over the fact 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 purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial Gazette under sub-section 68(2) only on 31-12- 2004 by the Notification No. 36/2004-S.T. w. e. f. 1-1-2005 and Service Tax was not leviable on the receiver for the period prior to 1-1-2005. 4. The learned Authorised Representative for the Department 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iable to pay Service Tax in relation to any taxable service provided by non-resident, who did not have office in India, to such person receiving taxable service in India, in the relevant period during the currency of clause (iv) of Rule 2(d) making the recipient of every 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 ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
