9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. Muthu Venkataraman JUDGMENT V. Ramasubramanian, J. This appeal by the Revenue is filed under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, questioning the correctness of the order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, dismissing an appeal arising out of the quashing of a show cause notice for recovery of refund already made. 2. We have heard Mr.Vikram Ramakrishnan, learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T (112) 365 SC]. Therefore, the first respondent made a claim for refund and the same was allowed. The amount was also paid. 5. However, the Parliament brought-forth an amendment under Sections 116 and 117 of the Finance Act, 2000, to Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 with retrospective effect. The same received the assent of the President on 12.5.2000. 6. Therefore, a show cause notice was is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inance Act, 1994 for collection of Service Tax from the recipient of clearing and forwarding agents since 16.10.98. 9. In support of the contention of the Department, it is submitted by Mr.Vikram Ramakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel that the impugned order of the Tribunal was based upon its earlier decision in Commissioner v. DCW Limited [2006(1) STR 298]. But the same had already been s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lready made could be recovered only within the period of 30 days from the date on which Finance Act, 2000 received the assent of the President. Therefore, obviously the show cause notice dated 20.7.2000 was not in accordance with Section 117. Hence, the substantial questions of law need not be answered at all. The claim for recovery of the refund having not been made in accordance with Section 117 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
