Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Service Tax vs M/S.Eid Parry (India) Ltd on 7 June, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
S/96/2004 and ST/CO/15/2005
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.116/2004 (M I)(ST) dated 29.07.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]
For approval and signature:
Honble Smt. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
Honble DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any
authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of :
the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :
Authorities?
Commissioner of Service Tax
Appellant
Versus
M/s.EID Parry (India) Ltd.
Respondents
Appearance :
Shri C. Rangaraju, SDR Ms. Uma Maheswari, Adv.
For the Appellant For the Respondents CORAM:
Honble Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of hearing : 07.06.2010 Date of decision : 07.06.2010 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram The issue in dispute in the present appeal stands settled against the Revenue by the apex court decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II Vs L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. [2005 (187) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.)]. The Honble Supreme Court has upheld the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that even the amended Section 73 takes in only the case of assessees who are liable to file return under Section 70. Admittedly, the liability to file return is case on the appellants only under Section 71A. The class of persons who come under Section 71A is not brought under the net of Section 73. For this reason, the Tribunal had held that the show-cause notices issued to the appellants invoking Section 73 are not maintainable. The ratio of the above decision is applicable on all fours to the facts of the present case. Following the same, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
2. The cross objection is only in the nature of comments upon/ reply to the Revenues appeal and is, therefore, dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT
ksr
08-06-2010
??
??
??
??
1
2