PRISM CEMENT LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the case was called none appeared on behalf of the appellant. We have heard learned DR for the Revenue.

(2.) The appellant filed these appeals against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as the common issue was involved in these appeals. Therefore, they are being taken up together.

(3.) The appellant filed a refund claim of service tax paid in relation to the goods transport operators and clearing and forwarding agents in pursuance to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharti v. Union of India reported at . During the pendency of the refund claim, the provisions of the law were revalidated retrospectively by Section 117 of Finance Act, 2000. In view of the revalidation Act, the levy of service tax, during the relevant period, is a valid levy. The Commissioner (Appeals) followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. and Anr. v. C.C.E. reported in 2003 (58) R.L.T. 578. In view of the above decisions, we find no infirmity in the impugned order, the appeals are dismissed.