9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aman For the Respondent : Mr. Mohammed Shaffiq for M/s. R. Karthikeyan ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Chitra Venkataraman,J.) The above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed at the instance of the Revenue against the final order No. 844/2004 dated 1.10.2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench by raising the following substantial question of law: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Tax?." 2. It is seen from the decision reported in (2005) 13 SCC 245 CCE v. L.H. SUGAR FACTORIES LIMITED, the judgment of the Tribunal in L.H.Sugar Factories Limited and others was affirmed by the Apex Court by holding that the liability to file return on the recipient of goods transport operator service is only under Section 71-A of the Finance Act; since Section 73 of the Act does not cover t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... regard to Section 71-A under the Finance Act, 2003 with retrospective effect requiring the assessee like the respondent herein to file return, cases falling under Section 71-A of the Act was also to be taken under the general provisions of Section 70 of the Finance Act, 1994. Thus, the first Appellate Authority confirmed the demand. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee went on appeal before the Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion, the facts herein being identical, we have no hesitation in confirming the order of the Tribunal, thereby rejecting the Revenue's appeal. 5. Even though learned standing counsel for the Revenue pointed out that the Validation Act had not been considered in those judgments, yet, on facts, we do not find that would make any difference at all since, there were no proceedings prior to issuan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
