9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the judgement of CESTAT dated 23.7.2003 in tax appeal No.1577/2003. 2. Facts are that the respondent assessee was engaged in Goods Transport Operator Service. As per the amendment made in the Finance Act, 2004, regarding service tax, the respondent was required to pay service tax on such services provided b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upreme Court in case of M/s. Laghu Udyog Bharti & other v. UOI reported in 105 TAXMAN 630. the adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings. By way of retrospective amendment however, the levy was saved despite the judgement of Supreme Court in case of M/s. Laghu Udyog Bharti & other (supra). The Commissioner of Customs acting as revisional authority, took up suo motu revision of these proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to the question of demand of service tax on the ground that in the show cause notice, there was no specific demand of any quantum of service tax and noticees were merely called upon to apply for registration and file returns. 5. In this context, while admitting the appeal, the Court framed the following substantial questions of law : "1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no legal provision is cited or wrong provision is mentioned, by itself may not be the ground for invalidating the action of the authority, if the power for such action can be traced to another source. However, in the present case, we are concerned with a far graver lapse on part of the adjudicating authority namely, of not giving any details of the unpaid service tax which he proposed to recover w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
