2017 (9) TMI 624

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oel, (Advocate) for the Respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is registered with the service tax Department for providing Cargo Handling Service. During the course of verification of the records / documents at the premises of the appellant, the officers of service tax Department observed that the activities undertaken by the appellant pursuant to the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e adjudication order and allowed the appeal in favour of the respondent herein. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the submissions made in the grounds of appeal. 3. On the other hand, the ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that since the period of dispute is prior to April 2006, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... st the appellant:- "I observed that the rule 5(1) has been introduced only with effect from 18.04.2006. the period of dispute in the case is entirely prior to April 2006. There was no rule pari material rule 5(1) therefore applicability of the rule prior to 18.04.2006 is based on presumption only." 6. In absence of any statutory provisions, authorizing levy and collecting of tax on the reimbursa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X