(1.) HEARD learned Advocate for the appellant and learned DR for the Department.
(2.) WHEN these appeals came up for hearing before the learned single Member on 30 -8 -2007, it was noticed by the learned single Member that there was difference in the opinions expressed in different decisions of the Tribunal on the issue as to whether service tax in relation to the goods transport service received by party during the particular period can be recovered by issuance of show cause notice beyond three years thereafter and in that connection the learned single Member noted the decisions in the matter of BPL Engineering Ltd. v. CST, 2006 (3) S.T.R. 747 (Tri. -Bang.), R.K. Marble Pvt. Ltd., 2006 (4) S.T.R. 201 (Tribunal) : 2007 -TIOL -29, CCE, Jaipur v. Mangalam Cement Ltd. . He also referred to the decisions of the Apex Court in the matter of CCE, Meerut -II v. L.H. Sugar Factories Limited, 2006 (3) S.T.R. 715 (S.C.) :, 2005 (187) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.), Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. Union of India , S.S. Gadgil v. Lal & Co. , K.M. Sharma v. ITO and decision of Kerala High Court in Varkey Jacob and Co. v. CIT . Consequently, the learned single Member thought it appropriate to refer the matters to a Larger Bench. Accordingly, pursuant to the order passed by the President of the Tribunal, the matters were placed before the Division Bench. The matters came up for hearing before the Division Bench on 30 -1 -2009 wherein the Division Bench referring to the decisions in the matter of BPL Engineering Ltd. and Mangalam Cement cases observed that there are conflicting views expressed by two benches on the relevant issue and therefore the parties agree that the matter should be referred to a three Member Bench. The Division Bench passed the following order:
(3.) CONSIDERING the order of the Division Bench of the Tribunal, matter was fixed for hearing and upon hearing the learned Advocate for the appellant and learned DR, it is found necessary to pass the following order.