TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant was availing the services of the goods transport operators during the period November 16, 1997 to June 2, 1998. Without any demand or any direction from the Revenue, the appellant deposited the duty liability of service tax on his own on August 29, 2002 vide TR-6 challan. Revenue issued a show cause notice to the appellant fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice tax amount before the issuance of the show cause notice. Learned DR, on the other hand, submits that the amount paid by the appellant on their own vide TR-6 challan dated August 29, 2002 is based on their own calculation and hence the judgment of the L. H. Sugar Factory 1. See [2004] 165 elt 161 (CESAT-New Delhi) is not applicable in this case. It is his submission that having paid servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the period from May 12, 2000 to August 29, 2002 on service tax amount already paid should not be recovered from them under section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3.. Penalty under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for failure to furnish prescribed return should not be imposed upon them. As regards the submissions made by the learned authorised representative that the amount of service tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the basis of the deemed liability having been arisen earlier on the expiry of the relevant period in 1998, is, therefore, wholly misconceived. In the present case, it can be seen from the reproduced portion of the show cause notice that there was no demand of service tax under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 but the amount paid by them was appropriated. As regards the interest paid deman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
