2008 (10) TMI 83

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Appellant. Ms. M.I.J. Micheal for the Respondent. ORDER 1. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that the issue involved is payment of service tax by the receiver of service tax on goods transport service for the periods in the years 1997 and 1998. She submits that appellant had paid full service tax before issue of show-cause notice. She submits that the decision of the Supre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Parliament shows there was a dispute about liability and therefore penalty is not leviable. On the other hand Ld. JCDR pointed out that appellant paid service tax only after AG's audit pointed out that they have not paid the service tax with interest. She relies on following decisions in support of her contention that penalty is leviable :- (a) Planner India (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [Final Order No. 15....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. Advocate for the appellant stand overruled by the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. Therefore, as regards interest, it has been held that appellant is liable for the same. As regards penalty, the dispute started in 1997-98, enactment which gave retrospective effect came into effect only in 2003 after further amendments and was upheld by the Supreme Court in Gujarat Ambuja Cements....