9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... volved is regarding Notification No. 43/97-ST dated-05/11/1997 as amended by Finance Act, 2003. That first appellate authority has rejected their appeal regarding chargeability of GTA service on reversed charge basis during the period 16/11/1997 to 01/06/1998 by relying upon the case laws of Pataka Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Bolpur-[2009 (14) S.T.R. 531 (Tri.-Kolkata).] It is the case of the appellant that after amendment to Notification No. 43/97-ST dated-05/11/1997 under the Finance Act, 2003 retrospectively the benefit ought to have been given by the first appellate authority. Ld. Advocate relied upon the following case laws in support of his argument that the notification has to be interpreted by the facts for whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .-Kolkata). 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether or not appellant is required to discharge duty liability on GTA service during the period 16/11/1997 to 1/6/1998 by virtue of retrospective amendment of Notification No. 43/97-ST dated-5/11/1997 as amended by the 12th schedule of the Finance Act, 2003. It is the case of the appellant that by virtue of the retrospective amendment, appellant is covered by clause (i) of Notification No. 43/97-ST dated 5/11/1997 and is not required to pay Service Tax being small scale industry. In this regard first appellate authority has relied upon the case law Pataka Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bolpur-[2009 (14) S.T.R. 531 (Tri.-Kolkata)] where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both the Appeals are dismissed." 6. Appellant has relied upon several case laws on the issue where it has been held by the Apex Court to argue that a Notification should be interpreted by keeping in mind the intention behind the retrospective amendment carried out by the legislature. It is observed from the case law CCE vs. Himalayan Co-Op. Milk Product Union Ltd. (supra), that following observations have been made by the Apex Court in para 8: "8. Such Notifications by which exemption or other benefits are provided by the Government in exercise of its statutory power, normally have some purpose and policy decision behind it. Such benefits are meant to be provided to the investors and manufacturers. Therefore, such purpose is not to be de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
