9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in favor of appellant. - ST/153/08, C.O.-452/2008 - - - Dated:- 14-7-2017 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Judicial Member And Shri B. Ravichandran, Technical Member Sri Sanjay Bhaumik, Advocate For Appellant Sri S.S. Chattopadhyay, Supdt. (A.R.) For Respondent ORDER Per Shri P. K. Choudhary A show cause notice dated 22/05/2002 was issued proposing demand of Service Tax on the services of Clearing Forwarding Agent and Goods Transport Agency Service for the period 16/07/1997 to 31/08/1999 and 16/11/1997 to 11/06/1998 respectively under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1993. In earlier occasion, the Tribunal by order No. S-1020/A-617/Kol/2006 dated 12/07/2006 set aside the adjudication orders and remanded the matter to the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stries Ltd. (supra) dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The relevant portions of the said decision are reproduced below: 4. The Tribunal referred to Section 73 of the Finance Act which reads as follows : Section 73 (a) - The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or, as the case may be, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise has reason to believe that by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under Section 70 for any prescribed period or to disclose wholly or truly all material facts required for verification of the assessment under Section 71, the value of taxable service for that quarter has escaped assessment or has been under assessed, or any sum has erroneously been refunded, or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngly quashed the order demanding service tax from the respondents-service availers. Similar view has been expressed in the connected cases. 6. According to learned counsel for the revenue, the view of CESTAT is clearly unsustainable, because of retrospective operation of the provisions. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the respective judgments of the Tribunal. 8. It is to be noted that in an identical case in Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II v. L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. and Ors. - (2005 (13) SCC 245), this Court agreed with similar conclusions of the Tribunal. In the said case, the conclusions of the Tribunal were as follows : The above would show that even the amended Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
