1. Vide the impugned Order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of service tax alongwith interest against the respondents, which stands duly paid by them. However, he has set aside the personal penalty imposed upon the appellants by observing that the Explanation to Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2000, vide which the levy of service tax for the Clearing and Forwarding Agents, was re-validated with retrospective effect. While dropping the penalty, the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that during the relevant time, the provisions of service tax were held to be ultra vires by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udhyog Bharati v. UOI, 1999 (12) ELT 365. However, the said provisions were re-validated with retrospective enactment thus creating the tax liability against the respondents, but the same would not result in leviability of any penalty upon the respondents.
Accordingly, he has set aside the penalty. The Revenue is aggrieved with the above portion of the Order and has challenged the same in the present appeal 2. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri A.K. Mondal, learned SDR for the Revenue and Shri G.K. Mundhra, learned Consultant for the respondent-company, I find that the Tribunal in the case of Anil Chemicals and Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, 2002 (51) RLT 1037, has held that in view of the retrospective amendment in the Finance Act, 2000, the demand of service tax is sustainable against the assessees, but no penalty can be imposed, inasmuch as the retrospective amendment cannot bring about penal consequences. Inasmuch as the issue is decided, I do not find any merits in the Revenue's appeal and reject the same.