9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 935X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant Dr. J. Harish, Dy. Commissioner (AR), For the Respondent Per : V. PADMANABHAN The present appeal has been filed against the o Order-in-Review No.102/2007 dt. 27/12/2007 passed in the review proceedings by the learned Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore. The appellants had received the service of Goods Transport Operator services during the period 16/11/1997 to 01/06/1998 but did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chennai, reported in 2007(8) STR 397 (Tri. Chennai), wherein the Tribunal observed as under:- 3. After considering the submissions made by both sides, we note that the issue is already covered in favour of the appellants by decisions of this Bench, one of which has been cited by ld. Counsel, which is Final Order No. 1076 to 1088/06 dated 14-11-06 in Appeal No. S/14/06/MAS etc. The essential part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the respondents were not liable to pay service tax on the GTO service received by them during 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998 as the demand of tax was raised beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended. The ld. appellate Commissioners relied on the Tribunal's judgment in L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut-II [2004 (165) E.L.T. 161 (Tri.)], wherein i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted Civil Appeal No. l618/2005 filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara in the case of Gujarat Carbon and Industries and another Civil Appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III in the case of Sundaram Fastners Ltd. It is submitted that, in the said Civil Appeals, the Department's stand is contrary to the view taken by the apex Court in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
