IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. S.T.A.No.14 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.8.2010 Commissioner of Central Excise. -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Active International. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Standing counsel for the Revenue. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, “the Act”) read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 against the order dated 25.11.2008 in appeal No.517/2007-CU(DB) passed by the Customs, Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, proposing to raise following substantial question of law:- “Whether service tax on the overseas commission on account of service rendered by the foreign based commission agent is not leviable on the recipient of service w.e.f. 16.8.2002 in the light of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, which were framed by the Central Govt. in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 94(I) & (2) of the Finance Act, 1994?” 3. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. S.T.A.No.14 of 2010 4. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that service rendered being prior to addition of Section 66-A of the Act, providing for taxability of amounts received from services outside India, the view taken by the Tribunal that the said amount was not exigible to service tax, cannot be held to be erroneous, particularly in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laghu Udyog Bharati v. Union of India 2006(2) STR 276, which has been followed by this Court in order dated 17.11.2009 in C.E.A. No.30 of 2009 Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana v. M/s Bhandari Hosiery Exports Ltd. 5. In view of above, this appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 10, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2