9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts had availed the services of goods transport operators for the period 16-11-97 to 2-6-98 and were liable to pay service tax on such services. The appellants on their own calculated the amount of service tax payable by them and deposited vide TR-6 challan in the government treasury. Subsequently, they filed the refund claim for the service tax paid by them on the ground, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of L,H. Sugar Factories Ltd. -2006 (3) S.T.R. 715.(S.C.) = 2005 (187) E.L.T. 5 (S.C,. that such tax is not payable. Adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim and on an appeal, Commissioner (Appeal) also held the same views, 3. None appeared for the appellant when the matter was called out in the first session but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns." 6. I find that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered against the appellants by the decision of the Division Bench as regards the merits of the goods. 7. Another point, which has been raised by the appellants in their appeal memoranda, is that they are exempted from the category of the persons who are liable to pay service tax received from goods transport operators by virtue of Notification No. 43/97. The said notification reads as under:- "In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts taxable service provided by a goods transport operator from the levy of service t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), other than a factory-registered as small scale industry with the State Government. (ii) any company established by or under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), other than a company which is solely and exclusively a trading company and is also registered as a private limited company,"; (b) clause (viii) shall be omitted. 16th November, 1997 8. It is the contention of the appellant that they would fall under the category of (vii) as being the company, registered with sales tax authority and whose turnover has exceeded Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) in the preceding financial year. To my mind, this argument looks fallacious on the face of it, in as much that the appellant in this case is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
