ORDER
D.N. Panda, Member (J)
1. In the Revenue’s appeal, the Id. JDR appearing submitted that the appellate authority below, in para 4 of the order came to the observation that the issue in question was required to be answered in terms of Rule 2(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1944 (sic)(1994). The learned Appellate Authority should have come to the conclusion that where the service provider had provided service from a country outside India and the service so provided was received by person in India, then, liability was determinable. If these two points are clearly decided, who shall be liable to service tax can be decided. According to the mandate of the rule, if it is found that the service provider was from a country other than India but the service recipient was in India, the recipient was liable to discharge service lax liability.
2. None present for the Respondent.
3. Considering the submission of the Revenue, mere discharge of duty liability by bank guarantee shall not mitigate the situation if there is no liability. In the present case, there is no clear finding in the appeal order to satisfy whether requirement of Rule 2(d)(iv) was enquired into for determination of liability. It should be appreciated that orders of authority below should be self-speaking to meet scrutiny of higher courts.
4. Appeal of Revenue is therefore allowed and remanded to the lower appellate authority to arrive at a clear conclusion in the light of definition of the term “Person liable for paying service tax” as defined by Section 2(d)(iv) of Finance Act, 1994 affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Respondent and decide the matter in accordance with law.
(Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court on 6-3-2007)