9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant expressing his inability to appear on 10.6.2011. He has also submitted that the issue is already settled in favour of the appellants vide High Court and CESTAT decisions in the following cases: 1. Agro Dutch Ind. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh Appeal No.ST/189/10 & ST 820/08 2. Comm. vs. Toyoda Iron Works Co. Ltd. 2010(19) STR 802 (Kar High Court) &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- . He also ordered recovery of interest amount and imposed penalties under section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. On appeal by the party, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the original authority. 4. On going through the grounds of appeal, it is noticed that the appellants are challenging the levy of Service Tax on the recipient for the period 16.6.05 to 31.12.05 on the ground t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same is not liable to be paid. The said decision cannot be taken as holding that from 1.1.2005, it was liable to be paid. The said decision did not consider the enactment of Section 66A into the Finance Act. Further this issue has been specifically dealt with by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association vs. Union of India reported in 2009 (13) STR 235 (B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
