2007 (9) TMI 216

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng the period from 16.11.1997 to 1.6.1998, but they did not pay service tax, nor did they file returns for the said period. The department, by show-cause notice dated 24.10.2002, demanded service tax from the respondents for the above period, which was contested by the party. The original authority confirmed the demand of tax under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 with interest under Section 75 of the Act. This decision was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) in an appeal filed by the assessee. The appellate authority found that the issue was squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2005-TIOL-105-SC-ST /2005 (187) ELT 5 (SC). Its decision is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to 1.6.1998. They were not liable to pay service tax on GTO service during the said period by virtue of the Supreme Court's judgment in Laghu Udyog Bharti & Others Vs. UOI, 1999 (33) RLT 911 (SC) = 1999 (112) ELT 365 (SC),/[2006] 4 STT 322. which quashed that provision of Service Tax Rules, 1994 which made recipients of GTO service (who had received such service during the above period) liable to pay service tax for the said period. The relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 were amended by the Finance Act, 2000 with effect from 16.11.1997 to 1.6.1998. The Finance Act, 2000 came into force on 12.5.2000. These provisions were considered by the lower appellate authorities and it was held that the respondents were not liable to pay servi....