TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1041X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed after the retrospective amendment. In all such cases, the Tribunal held that no malafide can be attributed to the assessee and the show cause notices are barred by limitation. One such reference can be made to Honble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CCE Vadodara vs. Eimco Elecon Ltd. [2010 (7) TMI 477 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected on merits, as well as on limitation. The Tribunals decision in the case of CCE Raipur vs. Jaiswal Equipment & Holdings P Ltd. [2007 (6) TMI 31 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] can also be referred - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No . 41 of 2005-SM, Appeal No . 42 of 2005-SM, Appeal No . 43 of 2005-SM, Appeal No . 74 of 2005-SM, Appeal No . 93 of 2005-SM - O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can be attributed to the assessee. 4. The said orders of the original adjudicating authority were challenged before Commissioner (Appeals), who took note of the Tribunal s decision in the case of L H Sugar factory vs. CCE Meerut [2006 (3) STR 230( Tri-Del)]. In terms of said decision, it was held that even though a person receiving taxable services of goods transport operators are deemed to pay the service tax under section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994, but liablity to file return is cast on them only under section 71A and not under section 70. They are not covered under section 73 of the Finance Act. Accordingly, they are not liable to pay tax. Accordingly, he set aside the confirmation of demand against all the respondents. 5. Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red by the Tribunal in the case of L H Sugar Factory and it was observed that inasmuch as the assessee are not the persons who are required to file the return in terms of section 71, they are not covered under section 73 of the Act and are not liable to pay service tax. The said decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court when the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected. It is seen that while delivering the judgment of L H Sugar Factories, the Tribunal has taken note of all the amendment carried out by Finance Act, 2003 introducing amendment in section 73. 8. In view of the above, as the issue stand settled till the Hon ble Supreme Court, I find no reasons to interfere in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
