9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 888X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as under: The respondent - assessee had received service from Goods Transport Operator during the period 16.11.1997 to 01.06.1998. In terms of retrospective amendment of Section 65 in Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 and amendment to Finance Act, 2003 vide Section 158 a new Section 71A was inserted requiring the service receiver in case of GTO service, to pay the service tax and to file return within six months from the date on which Finance Act came into effect. The Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 17.03.2005 in OIO No.02/2005 confirming the assessment appropriated the amount paid by the assessee and demanded interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act 1994. In compliance thereof the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 27.07.2006 rejected the appeal. The order passed by the Appellate Authority was challenged before the CESTAT in ST No.293/2006 which came to be allowed vide order dated 14.06.2007. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the CESTAT, revenue has preferred this appeal by framing following substantial questions of law. "14. Whether the Revenue was entitled to invoke Section 71A of the Finance Act, 2003, which has been made operational retrospectively? 15. Whether the case of L H Sugar Factory vs. CCE Meerut (187) ELT 5 SC is applicable to the facts of the case, more so particularly when similar issue is pending in Civil Appeal 16185/2005 and 7144/2005 which is pending for consideration? 16. Whether the Respondent is absolved from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise has held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in allowing the appeals of the assessee and rejected the claim of the assessee by his order dated 17.05.2006. The appeal filed against the order of the Assistant Commissioner was rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. The CESTAT has reversed the findings of the Assistant Commissioner and allowed the appeal by the impugned order. 7. Thus, if the revenue was aggrieved by the OIA No.237/2005 CE, it ought to have taken such further action in accordance with law. It is trite law that once the appeal is allowed in favour of the assesse, the assessee must be entitled to all the benefit flowing there from. The Assistant Commissioner while dealing wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
