TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. ORDER 1. One of these appeals is by the assessee and the other by the revenue. M/s. PSL Ltd. (assessee) had received the service of Goods Transport Operators ('GTO Service', for short) during the period from 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998, but they had not paid service tax thereon. The Department issued a show-cause notice on 3-6-2002 by invoking the extended period of limitation under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, demanding the tax with interest and proposing to impose penalty for the delay of payment. The assessee resisted the demand of tax on merits as well as on the ground of limitation. They took the stand that the retrospective amendments brought to the Finance Act, 1994 under sections 116 and 117 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal of the assessee is directed against this decision of the revisional authority. 2. The assessee had filed a refund claim on 13-7-2004 on the strength of the Tribunal's decision in L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd's case (supra). The Deputy Commissioner rejected the claim in view of the Commissioner's Order-in-Revision No. 1/2005 ibid Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order. Hence the present appeal of the revenue. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned Jt. CDR for the revenue, I find that the view taken by this Tribunal in L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd '.s case (supra) on service tax liability on recipients of GTO s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. The contra decision taken by the Commissioner (Revisional Authority) is set aside and the assessee's appeal is allowed. 4. When the assessee's appeal stands allowed, they are entitled to the consequential relief of refund as held in Kothari Phytochemicals International v. CCE 2005 (185) ELT 325 (Trib.-Chennai) and Fenner (India) Ltd. v. CCE [2006]3 STT 156 (Chennai - CESTAT). This right of the assessee also flows from the Apex Court's decision in L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd.'s case (supra) and the same cannot be contested on the ground that, after the said decision of the Apex Court, certain civil appeals filed by the Department on identical issue were admitted by the Apex Court. Therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
