DILIP KUMAR NAYAK Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against decision dtd. 23/3/2017 of the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench: Kolkata (Appeal no.ST/99/11). Coordinate Bench had admitted the appeal by framing the substantial question of law reproduced below.

(2.) Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant and draws attention to paragraph 5 of impugned decision to submit, the service tax in respect of mining service came into effect from 1/6/2007. Subsequent thereto, there was Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) circular dtd. 3/10/2007. Placing reliance on omitted Sec. 80 in Finance Act, 1994 he submits that the CESTAT committed error in not holding that his client was covered by sub-sec. (3) in Sec. 77 and said Sec. 80.

(3.) Perused impugned decision. In paragraph 2 the CESTAT recorded submission of appellant to also be that it had paid the duty plus interest before issuance of show-cause notice. This appears to be a fact as the Tribunal did not say otherwise in dealing with the case.