9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NT ( Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.Vimala, J. ) The Appeal has been filed by the Assessee, challenging the final order No.41233/2015, dated 21.09.2015, passed in Appeal No.ST/104/2005 on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. Brief facts: 2. A sum of Rs. 9,33,280/- was demanded from the Assessee, through a show cause notice, in respect of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l contention. It is submitted that there are vital and critical legal issues, which require detailed scrutiny by the Tribunal and therefore, the Tribunal should have preferred to hear the Assessee on merits, instead of passing the order by hearing the Revenue alone. 3.1. It is submitted that on the date of hearing, the counsel was hospitalized and therefore, the written submission was sent throug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 to 01.06.1998, the user of the service has been made liable to discharge the service tax liability. As the Hon'ble Supreme Court struck down those provisions, the Government effected retrospective amendment relevant provisions of the Act. (b) As per Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 (as amended), every person providing taxable service to any person is liable to pay service tax, but, in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t sought was granted and that on 21.09.2015, even though written argument was filed, the contentions raised in the written submissions were not taken into account, while passing the final order. However, the order has been passed on the date of hearing itself and it is not known whether written argument would have reached the CESTAT by that time. But, as the order passed by the CESTAT is devoid of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
