TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... file return under Section 71A, and not under Section 71, and thus, the period of show cause notice had to be calculated from the date, under Section 71A, and not Section 71. In the present case, the appellant was a service recipient. He was required to file returns for the period between 16-11-1997 to 2-6-1998, and thus, the provisions of Section 71A will be attracted, and not provisions of Section 71. - Refund allowed. - D.B. Central Excise Appeal No. 10 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 11-2-2015 - Sunil Ambwani, ACJ and Prakash Gupta, J. Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, for the Appellant. Shri Vinay Mathur, for the Respondent. ORDER In this Central Excise Appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Mangalam Cement Li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod 16-11-1997 to 2-6-1998. The provision was struck down, on which a retrospective amendment was made, which was held valid by the Supreme Court in Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. (supra). 5. For the relevant period in the present case, the appellant, as an assessee, was required to file return under Section 71A, and not under Section 71, and thus, the period of show cause notice had to be calculated from the date, under Section 71A, and not Section 71. 6. In L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court held as follows : - 2. Learned counsel for the parties have drawn our notice to the relevant provisions of the Finance Act as it stood in the year 1994 and thereafter as it stood after the various amendments to the Act, in subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edly, the liability to file return is cast on the appellants only under Section 71A. The class of persons who come under Section 71A is not brought under the net of Section 73. The above being the position show cause notices issued to the appellants invoking Section 73 are not maintainable. 9. In view of what has been stated in L.H. Sugar s case (supra) we do not find any merit in the present appeals which are accordingly dismissed. 8. We do not find any substance in the contention of learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the Tribunal has not committed any error of law for the High Court to interfere. 9. In the present case, the appellant was a service recipient. He was required to file returns for the period between 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
