Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)

1. Vide his impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals), has confirmed Service Tax of Rs. 3,56,015/- along with imposition of penalties against the appellant, who is a consultancy firm situated at Singapore and has provided services to a firm located in Goa. Surprisingly, the demand stands confirmed against the Singapore firm and not against the receiver of services located in Goa. It is not understood as to how demand can be confirmed against a firm, admittedly located in Singapore and having their business in Singapore only and how the Service Tax authorities in India can exercise their jurisdiction over them.

2. The Ld. Advocate clarified that the demand has not been confirmed against the service receiver. In any case, the period of demand is from 1999-2000 to 16-8-2002 when there were no provisions for recovery of Service tax even from the service receiver, as per the Tribunals decision in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. CCE & C, Aurangabad 2006 (3) S.T.R. 411 (T), such provisions having been introduced with effect from 16-8-2002 cannot have retrospective effect.

3. After hearing the Ld S.D.R., we find that the appellant has a good prima facie case on merits inasmuch as the demand has been confirmed against a Singapore firm not falling within the jurisdiction of Service tax authorities in India. As such, we dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.

4. Inasmuch as the short point is involved, we fix the appeal itself for final disposal on 27-11-06.

(Pronounced in Court.)