9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate for the Appellant Mr. K. Choudhury, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The Appellant is the provider of Consulting Engineer Services. They were discharging the Service Tax @ 5% in respect of the invoices raised by them till 30/05/2003. However, when the amounts towards these Invoices were realized during the period May 2003 to September 2003 and during August 2004, the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t months between May 2003 to September 2003 and in August 2004. There is no dispute that the Services were rendered by the Appellant prior to 14/5/2003. Therefore, he submits that the Department is in error in holding that even for the prior period, the Service Tax is payable @ 8%. He relies on the case law of Commr. of Service Tax Vs. Consulting Engineering Services (I) Pvt. Ltd.-2013 (30) S.T.R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd justifies the confirmed demands. 5. We have gone through the Appeal papers and submissions made along with the cited case law. 6. We find that the very issue was before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CST Vs. Consulting Engineering Services, cited supra, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court has held as under:- 7. In the absence of any Rules, we will have to examine as to what is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respectfully following this decision, we set aside the confirmed demands on merits. 8. We also find force in the Appellant's submission that there was no cause for the Revenue to issue the Show Cause Notice in 2008, for the services provided by the Appellant prior to 30/05/2003, wherein the invoices amounts were realized latest by August 2004. At that particular point of time, in the absence of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
