2016 (4) TMI 776

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ATE NAME DELETED ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue challenging the judgement of CESTAT dated 23.7.2003 in tax appeal No.1577/2003. 2. Facts are that the respondent assessee was engaged in Goods Transport Operator Service. As per the amendment made in the Finance Act, 2004, regarding service tax, the respondent was required to p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appears that by virtue of judgement of the Supreme Court in case of M/s. Laghu Udyog Bharti & other v. UOI reported in 105 TAXMAN 630. the adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings. By way of retrospective amendment however, the levy was saved despite the judgement of Supreme Court in case of M/s. Laghu Udyog Bharti & other (supra). The Commissioner of Customs acting as revisional authority, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bunal by the impugned judgement reversed the decision limited to the question of demand of service tax on the ground that in the show cause notice, there was no specific demand of any quantum of service tax and noticees were merely called upon to apply for registration and file returns. 5. In this context, while admitting the appeal, the Court framed the following substantial questions of law :....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....legal contours are substantially clear. Merely because in the show cause notice no legal provision is cited or wrong provision is mentioned, by itself may not be the ground for invalidating the action of the authority, if the power for such action can be traced to another source. However, in the present case, we are concerned with a far graver lapse on part of the adjudicating authority namely, of....