9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per P. G. CHACKO Member(T)-1. After hearing both sides, we condone the delay of 52 days involved in the filing of the Revenue's appeal, not because we are impressed with the explanation offered by the appellant but because the appeal itself is liable to be summarily dismissed on merits. 2. The respondents had utilized the service of Goods Transport Operators Service during the period from 16.11.1997 to 1.6.1998, but they did not pay service tax, nor did they file returns for the said period. The department, by show-cause notice dated 24.10.2002, demanded service tax from the respondents for the above period, which was contested by the party. The original authority confirmed the demand of tax under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) RLT 431 (CESTAT-Che.). 4. After considering the submissions, we find that the short question arising in this appeal is already covered against the Revenue by our decision in the case of Seshasayee Paper Boards (supra) , paragraphs 2 and 3 of our final order in the cited case are reproduced below:- "2. The respondents had received the service of "Goods Transport Operators" during 16.11.1997 to 1.6.1998. They were not liable to pay service tax on GTO service during the said period by virtue of the Supreme Court's judgment in Laghu Udyog Bharti Others Vs. UOI, 1999 (33) RLT 911 (SC) = 1999 (112) ELT 365 (SC),/[2006] 4 STT 322. which quashed that provision of Service Tax Rules, 1994 which made recipients of GTO service (who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellate authority. 3. In these appeals, the appellants submit that, after the decision of the apex court in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Court has admitted Civil Appeal No. 1618/2005 filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara in the case of Gujarat Carbon and Industries Vs. CCE [1994-2006] STT 608 (Mum.-CESTAT) Civil Appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai III in the case of Sundaram Fastners Ltd. It is submitted that, in the said Civil Appeals, the Department's stand is contrary to the view taken by the apex Court in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. (supra). The appellants before us have not claimed that the apex court stayed the operation of the Tribunal's or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
