9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (3) TMI 271 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim was rejected in OIO on the ground that in the retrospective amendment to the Finance Act, vide service tax liability has to be discharged by the receiver of the services of C/F agents It is noticed that the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Appeal No.ST/45/01 had rejected the Appeal filed by assessee - decision/judgment of the co-ordinate Bench applies in all fours in this case also, as it is in respect of the very same order-in-appeal hence impugned appeal is dismissed
Issues:
Refund claim of Service Tax paid to clearing and forwarding agents; Rejection of refund claim by lower authorities based on retrospective amendment to Finance Act; Appeal filed against order-in-appeal No.ZBN/347/M-V/2001; Appellants' absence during proceedings; Reference to previous Tribunal decision in Appeal No.ST/45/01; Dismissal of appeal based on previous Tribunal decision. Analysis: The case involves a refund claim for Service Tax paid to clearing and forwarding agents during a specific period. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim citing a retrospective amendment to the Finance Act, shifting the service tax liability to the receiver of services. The appellants challenged this decision through an appeal against order-in-appeal No.ZBN/347/M-V/2001. Despite being noticed, the appellants did not appear during the proceedings, nor did they request an adjournment. The legal representative for the respondents referred to a previous Tribunal decision in Appeal No.ST/45/01, specifically mentioning the dismissal of an appeal related to Tata SSL Ltd. in that case. The Tribunal, comprising Mr. M.V. Ravindran and Mr. K. K. Agarwal, reviewed the records and submissions by the legal representative. They noted that the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal had already rejected an appeal in the same order-in-appeal being challenged in the current case. Citing the principle of stare decisis, the Tribunal found no merit in the current appeal and proceeded to dismiss it. The judgment, pronounced in court, concluded the matter by upholding the decision to dismiss the appeal based on the precedent set by the previous Tribunal decision in Appeal No.ST/45/01. The legal principle of following a previous decision in a similar case was applied to maintain consistency and uphold the Tribunal's decision-making process.
|
