TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (12) TMI 95
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as again posted for hearing on 7-11-2008 and 5-12-2008 but the respondents did not appear for hearing in spite of notice. Hence the case is taken up for disposal on the basis of the evidence available on record. 4. The issue involved in the case is that the respondents are the recipients of 'Goods Transport Agency' services. They are liable to pay service tax on the said services in terms of section 68(2) of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 read with rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. They had paid service tax in respect of the said service for the period from 1- 1-2005 to 31-3-2005 by availing abatement of 25 per cent instead of 75 per cent of the gross amount under Notification No.32 /2004-ST, dated 3-12-2004 and Notificat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Excise 1987 (32) ELT 388 (Cal.); (iii) Order dated 13-1-2004 in respect of Writ Petition No.332 of 1996 in the case of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India 2004 (167) ELT 396 (Cal.); (iv) Order dated 18-12-1987 issued by the Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal Nos. 3023-3029 of 1979, in the case of Salonah Tea Co. Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes, Nowgong 1988 (33) ELT 249 (SC); (v) Final Order No. 194/2005, dated 3-2-2005 issued by CESTAT, SZB, Chennai, in the case of SRF Ltd v. Commissioner of customs 2005 (184) ELT 293 (Trib.-Chennai)." 9. It has been held by the Commissioner (Appeals) that it could be seen from the above-mentioned case laws that when tax was collected without the authority of law, the same cannot be ret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) on the case laws cited at para 8(i), 8(ii) and 8(iv) above is misplaced as these case laws relate to the period prior to 20-9-1991, when the provisions of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were amended vide Notification No. 30/91-CE (NT), dated 19-9-1991 by section 3 of the Central Excises and Customs Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991(40 of 1991). Hence, the ratio of these case laws cannot be applied post- 20-9-1991. The respondents' case is governed by the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India 1997 (89) ELT 247, which has dealt with the amended provisions of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in all aspects. The Supreme Court in the said jud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed or fail in his own proceedings and the finality of the proceedings in his own case cannot be ignored and refund ordered in his favour just because in another assessee's case, a similar point is decided in favour of the manufacturer/assessee. [see the pertinent observations of Hidayatullah, CJ. in Tilokchand Motichand extracted in Para 37]. The decisions of this Court saying to the contrary must be held to have been decided wrongly and are accordingly overruled herewith. [AIR 1959 SC 135 and 1968 (3) SCR 662 overruled; 1969 (2) SCR 824 followed]." (p. 253) 12. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra) has been again affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Asstt. Collector of Customs v. Anam El....