CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONE for the appellants. No request for adjournment has been also received from them. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeals after hearing the learned SDR.

(2.) IN both these appeals, the appellants have contested the correctness of the impugned order -in -appeal rejecting their refund claims of Rs. 6,15,688/ - and Rs. 4,95,785/ -.

(3.) THE refund has been claimed by the appellants on the ground that above said amount was paid by them as service tax during the period 16.11.1997 to 1.6.1998 when service tax was imposed on the goods' transport operators under the provisions of Rule 2(1)(d)(xii) and (xvii) and the said Rule was declared ultra vires by the Apex Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharti , but infirmities in the said Rules pointed out by the Apex Court in the above said judgment were removed by the Central Government by passing Finance Act, 2000 and the amendment was given retrospective effect. The said amendment which re -validated the law retrospectively was also challenged, but the same was upheld in the case of Gujarat. Ambuja Cement Ltd. v. UOI , by observing that the legislature was competent to remove infirmities retrospectively and make any imposition of tax, penalty invalid or valid. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to the refund of service tax already paid by them.