2009 (6) TMI 257

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tkara, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri Deven Parikh Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. - The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Cotton Fabrics and hold valid Central Excise registration. On scrutiny of the Balance-Sheets it was found by the department that they have entered into technology agreement with Con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....led by the respondent, Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order of the original adjudicating authority and allowed the appeal. Revenue is in appeal against this order. 2. Heard both sides. Shri Samir Chitkara, learned SDR submits that the appeal was filed in view of the fact that the facts are not similar to the case of M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. In the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. the Large....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the respondents are liable to pay service tax. In view of the Larger Bench decision in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. 's case, an appeal against which filed by the Revenue has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [2009 (14) S.T.R. J125 (S.C.)] is very clear and prior to 1-1-2005 there cannot be any liability against the respondent. 3. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has also taken the sam....