ORDER
K.K. Usha, J. (President)
1. In these applications the petitioners seek to rectify an alleged mistake on the face of the Final Order Nos. 9-10/2004-NB(A), dated 11-3-2004 passed by this Tribunal in their Appeals ST-4 & 5 of 2003-NB(A). We had affirmed demand of service tax and interest ordered under the adjudication orders against the petitioners while setting aside the imposition of penalty. In these applications, the petitioners contend that while passing the final order we had overlooked Sub-section (2) of Section 148 of the Finance Act, 2002 which made retrospective amendment to Section 65(13) of Finance Act, 1994 as amended by Finance Act, 2001. Sub-section (2) of Section 148 reads as under :-
(2) Any action or anything done or omitted to be done or purported to have been taken or done or omitted to be done under this chapter at any time during the period commencing on and from the 16th day of July, 2001 and ending with the day, on which the Finance Bill, 2002 receives the assent of the President, shall be deemed to be and always to have been, for all purposes, as validly and effectively taken or done or omitted to be done as if Sub-section (1) has been in force at all material times and, accordingly, notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority, recovery shall be made of all such service tax which have not been collected but which would have been collected, if Sub-section (1) has been in force at all material times, within a period of thirty days from the date on which the Finance Bill, 2002 receives the assent of the President, and in the event of non-payment of such service tax so recoverable, interest at the rate of fifteen per cent per annum shall be payable, from the date immediately after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, till the date of payment.
(emphasis supplied)
Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no act or omission on the part of any person shall be punishable as an offence which would have not been so punishable if this section had not come into force.
2. According to the applicants since they have paid the duty within 30 days from the date on which the Finance Bill, 2002 received assent of the President no interest is liable to be paid.
3. We find no merit in the above contention. We recorded the final order dated 11-3-2004 in appeals relating to adjudication orders dated 21-2-2002 in proceedings emanating from show cause notices dated 7-12-2001. The demand was for a period from 16-7-2001 to 30-9-2001 alleging that the appellants became liable to pay service tax with effect from 16-7-2001, the date on which Finance Act, 1994 came to be amended by Finance Act, 2001. It is relevant to note neither the show cause notice nor the orders passed by the departmental authorities had relied on the amendment by Finance Act, 2002 to sustain the demand. The adjudication orders were passed much before the amendment by Finance Act, 2002 came into effect.
4. In our final order we had taken the view that even according to the law as it stood on the date of issue of show cause notice and the period covered by it the activity of the appellants would be liable to service tax. In order to get the benefit of Sub-section (2) of Section 148 as claimed by the petitioners the service tax liability would have arisen only as a result of the amendment with retrospective effect brought in by Finance Act, 2002. In the appellants’ case, they were found liable to pay service tax for the period 16-7-2001 to 30-9-2001 by applying the law as it stood during the relevant period. Therefore, they are not entitled to the benefit of exemption from interest for the reason of paying the duty within 30 days.
5. There is no error apparent on the face of the order. The applications are dismissed.