9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... collecting service tax in terms of Notification No. 73/79-ST, dated 5-11-97. They, however, filed refund claim of Rs. 39,018/- which they earlier deposited as service tax, after the pronouncement of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharti Others v. Union of India, [1999 (112) E.L.T. 365 (S.C.)], dated 27-7-99 holding the provisions of Rule 2(d)(xii) and (xvii) as ultra vires and quashed the same. The refund claim of the appellants was accordingly sanctioned but meanwhile the Central Government amended the service tax rules in the Finance Act, 2000 and gave retrospective effect to the amendment vide which the Government revalidated the relevant rules and sub-rules which were earlier struck down by the Apex Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, could be issued as this provision has not been made applicable to the service tax recovery, as it does not find mention in Section 83 of the Service Tax which relates to the application of certain provisions of the Central Excise Act in relation to the service tax. Apart from this, according to the counsel, the Deputy Commissioner was not competent to issue show cause notice, in view of the Board's Circular dated 30-5-2000 vide which only the Commissioner has been authorised to issue show cause notice in such cases. Therefore, the impugned order, on this ground, is bad in law. But, in our view, this argument of the learned Counsel too, is devoid of any force of law. Section 83 of the Service Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rlier order by the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner only called upon the appellants after amendment in the service tax, to pay service tax for the disputed period. He, by issuing notice, did not intend to recall or review the earlier order. The amendment, as observed above, has been given retrospective effect by the Government. By virtue of that amendment, the appellants became liable to pay service tax and as such, they had been rightly called upon to pay the same. The ratio of law laid down in Collector v. Rajaram Maize Products - 1998 (97) E.L.T. 157 and Bhor Industries Limited v. Union of India - 1980 (6) E.L.T. 752 (Guj.), referred to, by the counsel is not applicable to the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
