9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y disposal of their appeal. After hearing both sides, we are inclined to dispose of the appeal finally at this stage. Accordingly, after allowing the application, we proceed to deal with the appeal. 2. The appellants had received the service of Goods Transport Operator during 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998, but they had not paid service tax on such service. In a show cause notice dated 29-9-04, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... art of the said final order is reproduced below: "2. The respondents had received the service of "Goods Transport Operators" during 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998. They were not liable to pay service tax on GTO service during the said period by virtue of the Supreme Court's judgment in Laghu Udyog Bharati & Oths v. UOI [1999] (112) E.L.T. 365 (S.C.)], which quashed that provision of Service Tax Rules, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in it had been held that a person receiving taxable service from GTO was not covered by the provisions of Sections 70 and 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 and that any demand notice issued to such a person by the Department under Section 73 was not maintainable. The Tribunal had also held that the above legal position did not get altered even after amendment of the Finance Act, 1994 by the Finance Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Ltd. (supra). The appellants before us have not claimed that the apex Court stayed the operation of the Tribunal's orders in the case of Gujarat Carbon and Industries (supra) and Sundaram Fastners Ltd. (supra). The mere admission of Civil Appeals by the apex Court would not operate as stay against the decision taken by the Tribunal. At present, the decision in L.H. Sugar Factories case is holdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
