TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een settled in assessee’s favour by the LB of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. - held that as a recipient of the consulting engineer service from outside India, the appellant was not liable to pay service tax prior to 1.1.2005 – demand not sustainable - 474, 555-556 of 2006, 145-146/06 and 15/07 - - - Dated:- 26-11-2008 - Mr. M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) and Mr. P.K. Das, Mem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant No.1 under the category of Consulting Engineers service for the period 7.7.97 to 15.12.02 for providing service to the Appellant No.2 and for the period 16.8.02 to 4.12.2002, tax was demanded on the Appellant No.2, who is recipient of service of Appellant No.1.The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of tax and imposed penalties. 4. We find that the issue involved is as to whethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation No.36/2004, recipient of such service could not be held liable for paying service tax prior to 1.1.2005 notwithstanding the amendment in Rule 2 (1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules under Notification No.12/2004. 18. We thus concur in the view expressed in the cases of Aditya Cement and Ispat Industries, supra. The issue is thus answered in favour of the assessee and it is held that as a rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
