TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pay the tax was restricted on the user of the services of the Goods Transport Operators instead of the provider of the said services. The said Notification and the validity of Rule 2 of the Service Tax Rules as amended in 1997 was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati Others v. Union of India reported in 1999 (112) E.L.T. 365 (S.C.) quashed the provisions of Rule 2(i)(d) (xii) and (xvii) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. While quashing the said Rules, the Hon'ble Court observed :- "..............and any tax which has been paid by customers or clients of the clearing and forwarding agents or goods transport operators shall be refunded within twelve weeks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... striking down the said Rules, shall be recoverable within thirty days from the date on which the Finance Act, 2000 receives the assent of the President. It further clarified that in the event of non-payment, such Service Tax so refunded with interest @24% per month, shall be recoverable from the date immediately after the expiry of the said period of thirty days till the date of payment. The said Act received the assent of the President on 12-5-2000. 1.6 In pursuance of the above provisions and in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 84(1) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, the appellants were issued a show cause notice proposing as to why the Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner granting refund of Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctive validation of the Service Tax Rules, vide Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2000. In terms of the said Section, refund of Service Tax granted in pursuance of any Order/Judgment is to be recovered within a period of thirty days from the receipt of the assent of the President. The appellants' contention that such recovery should be made from M/s. TISCO cannot be accepted, inasmuch as such refund was sanctioned by the Revenue to the appellants and not to M/s. TISCO, though the duty was originally deposited by M/s. TISCO. It is not a question of payment of Service Tax for which the liability may rest on M/s. TISCO after the amendment. Here the question is recovery of the refund granted by the Revenue in pursuance of the Hon'ble Supreme Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
