2008 (9) TMI 103

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Namasivayam for the Respondent. ORDER 1. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in CCE v. L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd [2005] 2 STT 282, the orders impugned in the captioned appeals filed by the revenue vacated the respective orders of the original authority. In the orders vacated, the original authority had demanded service tax for the period 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998 on GTO services from the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onious construction diametrically opposite to the legislative intention'. The Apex Court had failed in correctly interpreting the relevant legal provision to implement the intendment of the Legislature. 2. Heard concerned parties. 3. In its decision in CCE v. L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. 2004(165) ELT 161/[2005] 2 STT 283 (New Delhi - CESTAT) (Annex 1) the Tribunal had found that the notices ba....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rought under the net of section 73. The above being the position show-cause notices issued to the appellants invoking section 73 are not maintainable. 3. We entirely agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. We find no merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost." (p. 282) 4. I find that the revenue has not raised any valid challenge to the ....