TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rate of tax applicable prior to that date would be the one that would apply. In the present case, the rate of 5% would be applicable and not the rate of 8% - the demand set aside on merits. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- There are 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 any specific Rule coming into play, it was left to the interpretation of the Appellant and the Revenue. In such a case, the Department cannot fasten the suppression clause on the Appellant. Therefore, the confir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en 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. 586 (Del.), wherein it has been held that if the bills were raised prior to the change in the rates, the Service Tax is payable as per the old rates only. In view of above submissions, he prays that the Appeal may be allowed on merits. 3. He further submits that for the actual receipt, transactions were carried out between May 2003 to September 2003 and in A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licable and not the rate of 8%. Consequently, we answer the question in favour of the respondent and against the appellant. [Emphasis supplied] 7. 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 any specific Rule coming into play, it was left to the interpretation of the Appellant and the Revenue. In such a case, the Department cannot fasten the suppression clause on the Appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
