9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent ORDER Per Shri Justice ( Dr. ) Satish Chandra The present appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 193/ST/HAL/2012 dated- June 05, 2012. The period of dispute is October to November, 2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are that during the period of consideration, the appellants received the goods from goods transport agency and paid the tax under Rule 2 (1) (d) (v) of the Service Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court, reported as [2010 (19) S.T.R. 166 (P&H)], when the appeals filed by the Revenue was rejected. However, learned AR submits that the period involved in the present appeal is from April, 2006 to September, 2006. The legal fiction given to the said service for treating the same as output service, as defined in Rule 2(p) was withdrawn with effect from 19-4-2006 inasmuch as Explanation to Rule 2( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t have much effect inasmuch as no amendment was made to the provisions of Rule 2(r) of Cenvat Credit Rules. In terms of said sub-rule (r), provider of taxable service include a personal liability for paying Service Tax. Inasmuch as the respondent is liable to pay Service Tax in respect of GTA service so received by them, he is required to be treated as provider of taxable service in terms of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal in the case of Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. referred supra has taken note of identical submissions made on behalf of the assessee has held that recipient of services from the GTA is liable to pay the Service Tax and as such provider of taxable service in terms of Rule 2(r) and consequently gets covered by output service definition as appearing in Rule 2(p) of the Rules. As such, we fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
