Full Judgment
3. When the matter was called none appeared for the appellants. However there is a request for considering their case on merits.
4. Shri Hitesh Shah, learned DR appears for the Revenue and submits that retrospective amendment of law under Finance Act, 2000 the learned Commissioner reviewed the order. With the enactment of Sections 116 and 117 of Finance Act 2000 it became clear that service tax was leviable and chargeable from the assessee during the period 16-11-1997 to 2-6-1998 and in accordance with the provisions of Section 117 of Finance Act, 2000 interest at a rate of 24% per annum also became chargeable on late payment of the amount of tax.
5. The main contention of the appellant is that there was denial of natural justice and the appellant was not given an opportunity of presenting their case in defence. It has been contended that the order passed by the learned Commissioner is vague and did not specify clearly the action contemplated; that there was no justification for passing an order imposing service tax; that the order was harsh and illegal; that there was no evidence against the appellant that they have done anything wrong or there was mala fide intention. It has, therefore, been prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed.
6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned DR as also the written submission made by the appellant we note that certain Sections were retrospectively amended under Finance Act, 2000.
With the introduction of Sections 116 and 117 of the Finance Act, 2000 service tax became payable retrospectively. Hence there was nothing wrong in the order of the learned Commissioner reviewing the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner drop ping proceedings. In the circumstances we find no legal or factual infirmity in the order passed by the learned Commissioner. In the circumstances, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.