TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Commissioner Decision, Rejects Revenue Appeal</h1> <h3>CCE, BELGAUM Versus GHATAPRABHA SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT</h3> The Tribunal rejected the revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner (A)'s decision based on the applicability of Supreme Court judgments and the ... - Issues involved: Interpretation of Section 70 and Section 73 of the Act, applicability of Supreme Court judgments on liability under Section 71A, time-barred demands, validity of Service tax raised.Interpretation of Section 70 and Section 73:The Commissioner (A) set aside the impugned order based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in L. H. Sugar Factory Ltd. case, which held that show cause notice issued under Section 73 was not maintainable for entities not liable to file Service tax returns under Section 70 but u/s 71A. The show cause notice issued to the appellant under Section 70 was deemed invalid in light of this ruling, granting relief to the appellant.Validity of Service tax raised:The revenue contended that the Service tax raised should be confirmed as the Apex Court upheld the constitutionally validity of validating provisions of Finance Act. They argued that the subsequent judgment in L. H. Sugar Ltd. v. CCE was ultra vires, as there was no reason to question the levy of Service tax validated for the receiver of the service.Time-barred demands and applicability of judgments:The appellant's representative argued that the demands were time-barred, citing the earlier show cause notices and relying on the Larger Bench judgment in Nizam Sugar Factory case. They claimed that the show cause notice dated 10-11-2004 was time-barred and did not allege suppression or intention to evade duty. The Commissioner (A) agreed with this argument, stating that demands are not recoverable if earlier show cause notices have been issued, as per the Nizam Sugar Factory judgment.Conclusion:The Tribunal rejected the revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner (A)'s decision based on the applicability of the Supreme Court judgments and the time-barred nature of the demands. The Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's arguments and upheld the relief granted to the appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
