TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 943X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Finance Act, 1994 for the impugned period. no cogent evidence led by Revenue to prove their stand on facts to hold that the appellant should incur liability for a period not declared by law to be taxable. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as may be permissible in accordance with law - ST/152 of 2008 - ST/98 of 2010 - Dated:- 7-12-2010 - D.N. PANDA, RAKE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of India [2009] 18 STT 212 to contend that the appellant shall not be liable to service tax for the impugned period when there was no fixing of liability of the appellant in respect of above payment. He further submitted that SLP of Revenue against judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court before Hon'ble Apex Court was dismissed. Revenue has thus lost its prayer as reported in 2010 (17) STR J 57 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mean that the appellant shall deny liability in the present case following the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in Union of India v. Aditya Cement [2008] 16 STT 59. When Revenue cites the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, learned Counsel for the appellant opposed submitting that while Tribunal decided the case of Dimensional Stone v. CCE [2010] 25 STT 52 (New Delhi - CESTAT) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
