9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, the argument of the department that Section 68 has been amended retrospectively making the person receiving the service tax liable to service tax has no merits. Demand for short levy/non-levy, etc., if any, has to be made under Section 73 and during the relevant time Section 73 did not provide for demand of service tax from the persons who were recipients of the service. Therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent M/s. Ruby Mills Ltd., the recipient of the service on the ground that during the period 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998, the period to which the demand pertains, there was no provision for demand of service tax from the recipient of the service under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, inasmuch as the recipients were not required to file returns under Section 70. Therefore, following the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent submits that the show-cause notice has been issued in the present case in October, 2001; at that time there was no provision in law for demand of short levy of service tax, if any, and Section 73 of the Finance Act, envisaged the demand of service tax from persons who are required to file return under Section 70 and therefore, the demand is not sustainable in law, in view of the decision o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
