9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om 17-10-1998 to 30-6-1999 as service users towards the services received by them from the clearing and forwarding agents for the said period. The contention of the respondents is that there is no tax liability on service users on C F agents for the period subsequent to 16-10-1998 as per Finance Act, 2003. The Original Authority rejected the refund claim. The respondents appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati v. Union of India 1999 (112) ELT 365/[2006] 4 STT 322 held that the respondents who are users of the service provided by C F agents are not liable to pay the service tax as the Supreme Court has held that rule 2(d)( xii) and (xv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... JDR appeared for the revenue. 4. The learned Counsel brought to our notice that the issue is covered by the decision of the CESTAT s Chennai Bench in the case of CCE, Tirunelvelli v. DCW Ltd. [2006] 5 STT 42 (Chennai - CESTAT) wherein it is held that the service tax liability on recipient of clearing and forwarding service is limited to the period from 16-7-1997 to 16-10-1998 in terms of section 116 of the Finance Act, 2000. It has further been held that when section 116 did not enable the revenue to collect service tax from a recipient for clearing and forwarding service received by him during July-August 1999, the revenue cannot rely on any of procedural provision under section 116 to pass on service tax liability on such recipient for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inance Act, 2000 making recipient of the clearing and forwarding service liable for payment of service tax for the period from 16-7-1997 to 16-10-1998. The Chennai Tribunal in the cited decision supra, has exhaustively dealt with the issue and has held that the Parliament has authorised the collection only up to 16-10-1998 and the revenue cannot assume authority to collect such tax from the service recipient for any period beyond 16-10-1998. It has also held that section 117 is procedural and does not in any way alter in substantive provision brought on the statute book by section 116. Thus, in terms of law as interpreted by the CESTAT s Chennai Bench, no service tax liability can be fastened on the recipient of the C F agent beyond 16-10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
