JUDGMENT N. Kumar, J.—Revenue has preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Tribunal which has held that the assessee is not liable to pay service tax for the services received during the relevant period from foreign company. 2. The assessee, M/s Molex (India) Private Limited has paid Rs. 1,37,38,030-00 + Rs. 27,77,471-00 to their holding Company M/s Molex International Inc. USA towards Royalty fees for supplying technical data during the period 2003-C4 and the service tax on the aforesaid Royalty works out to Rs. 13,21,240-00. A show-cause notice came to be issued on 02.07.2004 calling upon them to show cause as to why a sum of Rs. 21,53,631-00 should not be demanded towards service tax with interest and penalty. The assessee replied to the said show-cause notice contending that collaboration agreement envisaged payment for use of technology involving transfer of technology and does not involve rendering of technical assistance, advice or consultancy. No services are actually rendered/provided or even deemed to be rendered or provided and they denied the liability to pay service tax. The explanation was not accepted by the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore he confirmed the demand and also directed payment of penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise, who set aside the said order insofar as Royalty fees for supply of technical know-how. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal following the judgment in the case of BST Ltd. vs. CCE, (2007) 6 STT 87 (Bang.-CESTAT) and other cases referred to therein, held, that the assessee is not liable to pay service tax. 3. The sum and substance of the reasoning is, during the relevant period, even if services are received from a foreign company, it is provider of service who should have paid tax and not the recipient of the tax, as the provider of service was also a Company. It is only from 18.04.2006 onwards, when Section 66A(2) was introduced in the statute book, the liability was foisted on the service recipient to pay the service tax. Therefore it dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. 4. This Court had an occasion to go into the said question in the case of Commissioner of C. EX. and S.T., Bangalore Vs. Therefore it dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. 4. This Court had an occasion to go into the said question in the case of Commissioner of C. EX. and S.T., Bangalore Vs. Micro Labs Ltd., (2011) 22 S.T.R. 615, wherein it has been held as under: From a perusal of the aforesaid Section it is clear from sub-section (1) of Section 68 that every person providing taxable service is liable to pay service tax. However, sub-Section(2) makes it very clear that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Section (1) in respect of any taxable service provided by the Central Government in the Official Gazette the service tax thereon shall be paid by "such person in such manner" and the same may be prescribed at the rate specified in Section 66 and all provisions of this Chapter shall apply to such person as if he is the person liable for paying the service tax in relation to such service. Therefore, the aforesaid provision authorises the Central Government to issue a Notification and prescribe a person who is liable to pay tax as well as the manner in which the tax is to be paid. As the opening words of sub-Section (2) starts with non obstante clause even though under section 68(1) the service tax is payable by the person who provides the service it is open to the Central Government by issuing a Notification under sub-Section (2) to specify that a person other than the service provider is also liable to pay tax. It is in this context the Notification 36/2004 S.T. dated 31st December 2004 has been issued not only stipulating services which are liable for service tax and it also makes it clear that any taxable service provided by a person who is not a resident or is from outside India who is not having any office in India. It is in this context the Notification 36/2004 S.T. dated 31st December 2004 has been issued not only stipulating services which are liable for service tax and it also makes it clear that any taxable service provided by a person who is not a resident or is from outside India who is not having any office in India. The said Circular is set out hereunder:- "(Notification No. 36/2004-S.T., dated 31.12-2004)" "Service tax payment in relation to specified services: In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 68 of the Finance Act 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government hereby notifies the following taxable services for the purposes of the said sub-section, namely :- (A) the services,- (i) in relation to a telephone connection or pager or a communication through telegraph or telex or a facsimile communication or a leased circuit; (ii) in relation to general insurance business; (iii) in relation to insurance auxiliary service by an insurance agent: and (iv) in relation to transport of goods by road in a goods carriage, where the consignor or consignee or goods is,- (a) any factory registered under or governed by the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948); (b) any company established, by or under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (c) any corporation established by or under any law; (d) any society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or under any law corresponding to that Act in force in any part of India; (e) any co-operative society established, by or under any law; (f) any dealer of excisable goods, who is registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) or the rules made thereunder; (g) anybody corporate established, or a partnership firm registered, by or under any law; (B) any taxable service provided by a person who is a non-resident or is from outside India, does not have any office in India. 2. This notification shall come into force on the first day of January, 2005. 2. This notification shall come into force on the first day of January, 2005. The said Circular was amended further by Notification No. 9/2006 dated 19th April 2006, which reads as under: Services provided from country other than India-Tax liability-Amendment to Notification No. 36/2004-S.T. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 36/2004-Service Tax, dated the 31st December, 2004. G.S.R. 849 (E), dated the 31st December, 2004, namely;- In the said notification, for paragraph (B), the following paragraph shall be substituted, namely: "(B) any taxable service provided or to be provided from a country other than India and received in India, under section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. Further Notification No. 24/2005-S.T. dated 07-June-2005, was issued which reads as under:-Service tax liability when on person other than Service providers-Amendment to Notification No. 36/2004-S.T. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following further amendments in notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 36/2004-Service Tax, dated the 31st December, 2004 which was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide number G.S.R.849(E), dated the 31st December, 2004, namely: In the said notification: (a) in paragraph (A), in sub-paragraph (iv), in item (b), for the words "established by or under", the words "formed or registered under" shall be substituted; (b) for paragraph (B), the following paragraph shall be substituted namely:-"any taxable service provided or to be provided by a person, who has established a business or has a fixed establishment from which the service is provided or to be provided, or has his permanent address or usual place of residence, in a country other than India, and such service provider does not have any office in India. In none of these Notifications the Central Government had specified the person who is liable to pay service tax in the case of a service provider who is residing outside India who has no fixed establishment in India or who has no permanent address in India. In none of these Notifications the Central Government had specified the person who is liable to pay service tax in the case of a service provider who is residing outside India who has no fixed establishment in India or who has no permanent address in India. However, the Parliament has amended the Act by introducing Section 66A by the Finance Act, 2006 which came into effect on 18-4-2006 which reads as under: - 66-A. Charge of service tax on services received from outside India.-(1) Where any service specified in clause (105) of section 65 is : (a) provided or to be provided by a person who has established a business or has a fixed establishment from which the service is provided or to be provided or has his permanent address or usual place or residence, in a country other than India, and (b) received by a person (hereinafter referred to as the recipient) who has his place of business, fixed establishment, permanent address or usual place of residence, in India, such service shall, for the purposes of this section, be the taxable service, and such taxable service shall be treated as if the recipient had himself provided the service in India, and accordingly all the provisions of this Chapter shall apply. Provided that where the recipient of the service is an individual and such service received by him is otherwise than for the purpose of use in any business or commerce, the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply: Provided further that where the provider of the service has his business establishment both in that country and elsewhere, the country, where the establishment of the provider of service directly concerned with the provision of service is located, shall be treated as the country from which the service is provided or to be provided. (2) Where a person is carrying on a business through a permanent establishment in India and through another permanent establishment in a country other than India, such permanent establishments shall be treated as separate persons for the purposes of this section. (2) Where a person is carrying on a business through a permanent establishment in India and through another permanent establishment in a country other than India, such permanent establishments shall be treated as separate persons for the purposes of this section. Therefore It is clear that from 18-4-2006 the service provided by a person who is outside the country and who has no fixed establishment or permanent address in the country, such a taxable service shall be treated as if the recipient of service had himself provided the service in India and accordingly all the provisions of this Chapter shall apply. Therefore prior to 18-4-2006 the service tax was not payable by the recipient, in the event the service provider was outside the country and he had no permanent address or place of business within the country. Under these circumstances, the order passed by the appellate authority relying on the aforesaid Judgments of the Bombay High Court and Delhi High Court cannot be found fault with. Accordingly we do not see any merit in this appeal. Hence, it is dismissed. 5. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the judgment referred to by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. There is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly it is dismissed.