ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. By these appeals arises from Order-in-Original No. 1/2006 dated 7.2.2006 and Order-in-Appeal No. 2/2006 (T) ST dated 10.3.2006 by which the Commissioner has confirmed demands of Service Tax in the category of ‘Clearing and Forwarding Agent’ for the period 16.7.97 to 16.10.98 and for the activity of ‘Goods Transporters Operators’ for the period from 16.11.97 to 2.6.98, in view of amendment brought to the Finance Act 2003 with retrospective effect. The appellant’s contention is that the show cause notice has been issued after the amendment to raise the demands, which has been held to be unsustainable by the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of CCE, Meerut-II v. L.H. Sugars 2006 (3) STR 715 (SC). Similar appeals on this very issue have been allowed in large number of rulings by this Bench. He refers to BPL Ltd. v. CST, Bangalore 2006 (2) STR 146 and BPL Engineering Ltd. v. CST, Bangalore as reported in 2006 (3) STR 747 (Tri.-Bang.).
2. Heard learned JDR who reiterated the Departmental contentions.
3. On a careful consideration, we notice that the demands had been raised in this case after the amendment brought to the Finance Act 2003 with retrospective effect. Therefore, in terms of the cited judgments, the demands are not sustainable. In the light of the cited judgments, the revenue ought to have issued the show cause notice before the amendment brought to the Finance Act, 2003 giving retrospective effect for collection of Service Tax. As the show cause notice had been issued after the amendment, the same are not sustainable. The plea of the appellant is accepted by allowing the appeals with consequential relief, if any.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
