9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred refund of the amounts paid, in April, 2004. The Deputy Commissioner Cuddalore, issued show-cause notices and confirmed the service tax due already paid by the appellants together with interest and penalty. The assessee filed similar appeals before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai against both the orders who upheld the orders of the original authority. The present appeals are against the said orders of the Commissioner of the Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai. 2. In these appeals, the appellants have argued that pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Laghu Udyog Bharati v. Union of India [2006] 4 STT 322, the Parliament had enacted certain validation provisions in the Finance Act, 2000. The enac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should file returns and submit themselves for assessment. The Validation Act, 2000 had cured the first anomaly as pointed out by the Hon'ble Apex Court but the second anomaly, namely such assessees should also file return and submit for assessment remained unremedied. The second deficiency had been overcome by the Validation Act, 2003. This was effected by enactment of section 158 of the Finance Act, 2003. This Act modified section 68(1) for deeming the service receiver to be a person liable to pay service tax but introduced a new section 71(A), whereby such assessees shall file returns and submit themselves to assessment. The appellants argued that both the validation acts did not refer to section 72 which provided for best judgment asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pending against the appellants during the relevant period as contemplated in section 117 and, therefore, the rigours of Finance Act, 2003 did not apply to their case. The appellants also submitted that the Commissioner had relied on a stay order of the Tribunal in deciding their appeal. Notices had been issued demanding service tax on the services of the Goods Transport Operators availed by the assessee during 16-11.1997 to 1-6-1998. Following enactment of Finance Act, 2003, the appellants deposited the service tax amounts in November 2003 under protest and claimed refund of the same. After issuing notices, the original authority vacated the protest and confirmed the service tax due and rejected the refund claims. He had also imposed a pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the day on which the Finance Act, 2003 received the assent of the President. The appellants had filed returns though delayed by a couple of days in each case for which the appellants were imposed a penalty of Rs. 400 in respect of the assessee's Nellikuppam unit and Rs. 200 in respect of its Thiyagavalli unit. The impugned orders have only upheld the perfectly legal orders passed by the original authority. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. In this connection I find that the South Zonal Bench of the Tribunal in its final order No. 823/2006 dated 30-8-2006 made the following observations in a similar case. "After considering the submissions, we are unable to agree with the submissions made by learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
