2013 (11) TMI 1462

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a charging provision from 1-6-2007 incorporated into law by Finance Act, 2007. This explanation cannot be read as retrospective in nature following the ratio laid down in Martin Lottery case [2009 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and the appellants shall not be brought to the ambit of tax for the period 9-7-2004 to 30-9-2005 when the explanation was inserted to the above section w.e.f. 1-6-2008 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat a letter dated 1-8-2008 was filed indicating that jurisdiction of Division Bench was exercisable over the matter. 2. Shri A.P. Kothari, learned C.A. appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that whether impugned service provided during the impugned period is taxable or not, is a matter of determination of liability required to be considered by the jurisdiction of Division Bench. Accordi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... software. 4. The learned DR on the other hand supports the order of the authority below. 5. Heard both sides. 6. We are satisfied that mandate of Statute requires the appeal to be maintainable before Division Bench. Accordingly, we recall the ex parte stay order passed on 25-9-2008 following the Apex Court judgment in the case of J.K. Synthetics v. UOI - 2006 (204) E.L.T. 369 (S.C.). 7. W .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X