Mrf Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

2. the assistant commissioner accepted the claim for refund of the service tax paid by the appellant and ordered to be paid to the consumer welfare fund on the ground that it has no t been shown as required by sub-section(2) of section 11b of the central excise act, 1944 (which is made applicable to the service tax in question by section 83 of the finance act, 1994 which levy the tax) that the incidence of the tax claimed as refund has not passed on. on appeal from the order the commissioner (appeals) the appeal to be not maintainable by virtue of provisions of section 116 and 117 of the finance act validating with retrospective effect the provisions of 1994 finance act requiring service tax will be paid by the users of the transporter. the appeal has become infructuous.3. it is contended in the appeal that writ petitions of various parties one of which u.p. state sugar corporation challenging the retrospective effect has been admitted by the court. the fact of admission of a writ petition against the provisions of law does not amount that provisions of law ceased to be valid. till is held to be invalid such a provision of law is valid and is binding. the appeal is therefore not maintainable.