2006 (8) TMI 616

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Respondent. ORDER [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - This appeal of the department is against dropping, by the lower appellate authority, of demands of service tax on "Goods Transport Operators Service" and "Clearing & Forwarding Agents Service" received by the respondents during the period 16-11-97 to 2-6-98 and 16-7-97 to 16-10-98 respectively. The amount of tax on the two services were ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondents can no longer rely on the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner v. L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd., 2006 (3) S.T.R. 715 (S.C.) = 2005 (187) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) inasmuch as, in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. UOI, 2006 (3) S.T.R. 608 (S.C.) = 2005 (182) E.L.T. 33 (S.C.), their lordships, while upholding the constitutional validity of the retrospective amendments brought to the Financ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed by his clients in the 'protest letter' submitted to the Superintendent of Central Excise as also the written submissions dated 18-8-2006 filed by the party. The attempt made by the respondents is to establish that the ratio of the decision in L.H. Sugar Factories case would still govern the present case. 3. After considering the submissions, we are unable to agree with the submissions ma....