9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 1020X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne 16, 2006 allowed the appeal of the respondent and granted consequential reliefs. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has preferred this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, the distinction drawn by the Tribunal between the consignment agency service and clearing and forwarding agency service, was legal and correct, in view of def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant that as far as the question of clearing and forwarding agency is concerned, this court by its decision in another case has answered that such service provider has to pay service tax and therefore question No. 1 has to be answered in favour of the appellant. He further submits that as a service receiver the respondent-assessee had to pay tax for the relevant period, namely, July 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndustries Ltd. reported in [2008] 17 VST 55 (SC); [2008] 12 STR 3 (SC), has held that subsequent to April 1, 1998 no showcause notice can be issued for collection of the service tax for the period prior to it and therefore in view of the said decision, the show-cause notice dated March 28, 2001 issued in the instant case was not in accordance with law and therefore the order passed by the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut II. v. L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. reported in [2006] 4 VST 91 (SC); [2005] 187 ELT 5 (SC), the apex court held that show-cause notice could not have been issued for collection of service tax by making a demand after April 1, 1998. Hence, following the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the show-cause notice issued in the instant case is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
