Lajja Ram, Technical Member.- In this appeal filed by M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd., the matter relates to the service tax levied on the goods transport operators or clearing and forwarding agents. After the Supreme Court decision in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati v. Union of India 1999 (112) ELT 365, the refund claim was filed by the appellants which was sanctioned but the amounts were credited in the Consumer Welfare Fund in view of the provisions relating to unjust enrichment. The appellants agitated the matter that the amount should not have been credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) considered the matter and noted that under sections 116 and 117 of the Finance Act, 2000, retrospective amendments had been made and that the matter as such has been finally settled by the Parliament. Last para of his order is extracted below :-

"I have gone through the case records. I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the appellants. Being a creature of the statute, I am bound by its provisions. Moreover, the appellants have failed to place on record any decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court staying the aforesaid sections of the Finance Act, 2000. In view of the clear-cut wording of section 117, validating certain action under the Service Tax Rules with retrospective effect, the current appeals as a matter of fact have become infructuous and are dismissed as such. As all the appeals are disposed off in view of the provisions of the Finance Act, 2000 referred to above, other issues raised in the individual appeals like unjust enrichment, limitation etc., have not been taken up."

2. Shri R.C. Bhatnagar, consultant submits that the matter has again been taken up to the Honourable Supreme Court but fairly agreed that there is no stay and there is no order regarding the retrospective effect of the amendments made in sections 116 and 117 of the Finance Act, 2000.

3. Ms. Ananya Ray, SDR submits that the Parliament has already validated the action taken by the department and, thus, there is no infirmity in the view taken by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).

4. After hearing both the sides and after going through the facts on record including the copy of the order, dated 3-5-2001 of the Honourable Supreme Court, we find that there is no stay with regard to the Finance Act provisions referred to by the appellate authority. It is also seen that even the writ petition has not been admitted and the matter has been adjourned by the Honourable Supreme Court.

5. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the learned Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.