2010 (4) TMI 1020

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the respondent-assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which by its order dated June 16, 2006 allowed the appeal of the respondent and granted consequential reliefs. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has preferred this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether, the distinction drawn by the Tribunal between the consignment ag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the Revenue and learned counsel for the respondent-assessee. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that as far as the question of clearing and forwarding agency is concerned, this court by its decision in another case has answered that such service provider has to pay service tax and therefore question No. 1 has to be answered in favour of the appellant. He further submits that as a s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on culminating in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara I v. Gujarat Carbon & Industries Ltd. reported in [2008] 17 VST 55 (SC); [2008] 12 STR 3 (SC), has held that subsequent to April 1, 1998 no showcause notice can be issued for collection of the service tax for the period prior to it and therefore in view of the said decision, the show-cause notice dated March 28, 2001 issued in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;s case [2008] 17 VST 55 (SC); [2008] 12 STR 3 (SC), wherein following the earlier decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut II. v. L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. reported in [2006] 4 VST 91 (SC); [2005] 187 ELT 5 (SC), the apex court held that show-cause notice could not have been issued for collection of service tax by making a demand after April 1, 1998. Hence, following the afo....