CALVIN WOODING CONSULTING LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS group of ten appeals raises common questions and common contentions have been canvassed by both the sides.

(2.) THE Revenue has filed Service Tax Appeal Nos. 169 to 173 of 2005 challenging the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which the orders -in -original, to the extent of confirming the demand of Service Tax and imposing penalty on the recipient of service - Grasim Industries Limited, in India, was set -aside. The Original Authority had held that, the recipient of service, Grasim Industries Limited, (hereinafter referred to as 'Grasim'), had contract/work orders. Since the services were received prior to 16.08.2002, even though it (Grasim) may not have been directly liable to pay the Service Tax at that relevant time, as a recipient it was liable, in view of the contract by which it had undertaken the liability to pay the tax which was payable by the service provider. In all these appeals filed by the Revenue, recipient of service, who, according to the Revenue, had undertaken the liability to pay Service Tax, is the respondent.

(3.) SERVICE Tax Appeal Nos. 159 to 163 of 2005 have been filed by Calvin Wooding Consulting Ltd., Lenzing Aktiengeseooschaft, List AG, Jenewin and Partner, and Eurafrica S.A., against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) under which the liability of the service providers to pay the Service Tax was upheld and penalties imposed by the original authority were confirmed. All these appellants were service providers stationed abroad and engaged by the Indian party (Grasim) for receiving their service in India.