9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived by the respondent, during the period from 16-7-1997 to 16-10-1998, demanded through show-cause notice dated 13-9-2004 by an Order-in-Original No. 28/DII/2005, which was challenged in appeal and the matter was remanded back for fresh decision duly observing the principles of natural justice vide Order-in-Appeal No. 86/2006-C.E., dated 23-6-2006. The original authority vide impugned de novo order confirmed the amount of service tax, also demanded interest under section 75, imposed penalties under each sections of 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon various decisions of the Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Original and allowed the appeal. 3. Aggrieved by such an order, the Revenue has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is totally misplaced inasmuch the said provisions of the Finance Act do not provide for making any fresh demand after lapse of five years from the relevant date. The present case is not a case wherein such demand was made earlier and was either pending or decided in terms of any provision of law, or case law, on the subject, in favour of the appellant. The validation provisions of sections 116 and 117 of the Finance Act, 2000 did validate the provisions of collection of service tax with effect from 16-7-1997 as also the action already taken or initiated, and to be taken within the prescribed time-limit, but did not envisage fresh demand beyond the statutory time-limits i.e., cases where the department had failed to initiate action in acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the connected cases. ** ** ** 8. It is to be noted that in an identical case in CCE v. L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. [2005] 2 STT 282, 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 73 takes in only the case of assessees who are liable to file return under section 70. Admittedly, the liability to file return is cast on the appellants only under section 71A. The class of persons who come under section 71A is not brought under the net of section 73. The above being the position show-cause notices issued to the appellants invoking section 73 are not maintainable.'" (p. 110) In view of the same, I do not find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
