9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 41X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the government treasury. Subsequently, they filed the refund claim for the service tax paid by them on the ground, that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of L,H. Sugar Factories Ltd. -2006 (3) S.T.R. 715.(S.C.) = 2005 (187) E.L.T. 5 (S.C,. that such tax is not payable. Adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim and on an appeal, Commissioner (Appeal) also held the same views, 3. None appeared for the appellant when the matter was called out in the first session but there was a request by the clerk of the advocate for pass over. The matter was passed over to the afternoon session and when the matter was again called out, none appeared for the appellant. 4. Heard the learned DR. 5, Considered the submissions made by lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat they are exempted from the category of the persons who are liable to pay service tax received from goods transport operators by virtue of Notification No. 43/97. The said notification reads as under:- "In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts taxable service provided by a goods transport operator from the levy of service tax on taxable service rendered by such operator to a customer in relation to carriage of goods by road, where the freight for such carriage is paid or is liable to be paid by any person or his agent, other than - (i) any factory registered under or governed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1956), other than a company which is solely and exclusively a trading company and is also registered as a private limited company,"; (b) clause (viii) shall be omitted. 16th November, 1997 8. It is the contention of the appellant that they would fall under the category of (vii) as being the company, registered with sales tax authority and whose turnover has exceeded Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) in the preceding financial year. To my mind, this argument looks fallacious on the face of it, in as much that the appellant in this case is a limited company and will get covered under the clause (ii) of the Notification as being "any company established under the Company's Act 1956." Hence, on this grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
