2005 (9) TMI 638

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 Respondent. ORDER During the period 16-7-1997 to 31-8-1999, the appellants had utilised the services of M/s. Madras Industrial Product Corporation, Erode qua consignment agents. Two show cause notices were issued to them demanding Service Tax (with interest) and proposing penalties, one dated 21-7-2000 and the other dated 8-4-2002 covering the spells 16-7-1997 to 16-10-1998 and 17-10-1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ised in show cause notice issued after 12-5-2000. 3. Ld. SDR reiterates the findings of the original and first appellate authorities and also relies on the Supreme Court's judgment in Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. Union of India [2005 (182) E.L.T. 33 (S.C.)] in support of his contention that, by virtue of Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2000, recipients of services of consignment agents f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iod a show cause notice had been issued in 29-6-1999 demanding Service Tax on the services received by them during the said period. The said demand was dropped by the original authority as per order dated 29-10-1999 in view of the Apex Court's judgment in Laghu Udyog Bharati (supra). This order of the original authority became final for want of challenge by the Department. Later on, however, the D....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-10-1998 to 31-8-1999. The challenge against this demand is on the ground that, for the said period, the appellants qua recipient of service of consignment agent was not liable to pay Service Tax on the amount paid for such service. None of the amendments brought to the Service Tax provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 authorised the Revenue to treat recipients of the above service as assessees for ....