https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162745 Recipients of goods transport operator service could not be subjected to a revived service tax demand and equal penalty once the governing law had been settled by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal noted that the earlier view in L. H. Sugar Factories Ltd. had held such assessees outside section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 for demand purposes, and that no stay had been granted merely because similar matters were later admitted in appeal. A revisional authority could not ignore binding precedent on that basis. The revisional order was therefore unsustainable, and the demand and penalty did not survive. en-us Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Mar 2014 15:51:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162745 Recipients of goods transport operator service could not be subjected to a revived service tax demand and equal penalty once the governing law had been settled by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal noted that the earlier view in L. H. Sugar Factories Ltd. had held such assessees outside section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 for demand purposes, and that no stay had been granted merely because similar matters were later admitted in appeal. A revisional authority could not ignore binding precedent on that basis. The revisional order was therefore unsustainable, and the demand and penalty did not survive. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162745