TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ths from the date of 13-5-2003 - The material on record would clearly show that there is no doubt about the date on which the amendment was made to the provisions of the Act retrospectively with effect from 11-5-2000 - Supreme Court in CCE, Meerut v. L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd., (2005 -TMI - 47389 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) - Held that: when the assessee is covered u/s 71-A of the Act any show cause notice can be issued u/s 73 of the Act - Appeal is dismissed - 75 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 29-7-2011 - V.G. Sabhahit and B. Manohar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri S.N. Rajendra, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K.S. Ravishankar, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : V.G. Sabhahit, J.]. This appeal is filed by the revenue bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od from 16-11-1997 to 2-6-1998 without getting themselves registered with the Central Excise Department as required under Section 69 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 without following the statutory procedures laid down in the Service Tax Rules, 1994 without payment of Service tax and without following the statutory procedures laid down in the Service Tax Rules, 1994. During the said period, the receiver of the service was liable to pay Service tax @ 5% on the taxable value of the service used by him in terms of Section 65, 66 and 68 of the Finance Act, 1994. Section 68 has been amended retrospectively and a new Section 71A of Finance Act, 1994, has been inserted to revalidate the collection of Service tax payable by the user of service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2006 allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the original authority and being aggrieved by the same, revenue preferred appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal wherein the order passed by the Commissioner was confirmed on the ground that the subject matter is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in CCE, Meerut v. L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd., 2005 (187) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) = 2006 (3) S.T.R. 715 (S.C.) and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the revenue which is admitted for consideration of the substantial question of law framed in the appeal memo by order dated 11-9-2007. 4. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
