2007 (4) TMI 189

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... March 1998 but had not filed service tax returns or paid tax. A show-cause notice dated 11.3.99 was issued to them by the department demanding the tax for the above period and also proposing penalty on the noticee. The original authority, in adjudication of the said notice, confirmed demand of service tax of Rs.2,10,902/- against the appellants and imposed on them a penalty of Rs.2,31,902/-.&nbsp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... service for the aforesaid period had also been considered and decided in favour of the assessee. For the sake of clarity, para-2 of final order dt. 1.12.2006 ibid is reproduced below :- "In these appeals, it is pointed out that, after the decision in L.H. Sugar Factories case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has admitted civil appeals filed by CCE Vadadora-I and CCE Chennai-III in the cases of Gujar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der Section 71A, is also covered within the ambit of Section 73 (1) (a). Accordingly, the appellants' case is that the subject SCNs were issued within the powers of the department under Section 73 (1) (a) of the Finance Act, 1994.  Ld.SDR has reiterated this case of the department. Ld.counsels/consultants, opposing this plea, submit that the above contentions would not stand the test of the r....