TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w - ST/2/05-Mum, ST/3/05-Mum & ST/4/05-Mum, ST/5/05-Mum ST/6/05-Mum, ST/7/05-Mum & ST/8/05-Mum,ST/9/05 & ST/10/05-Mum ST/11/05-Mum ST/12/05-Mum ST/13/05-Mum & ST/14/05-Mum - - - Dated:- 27-7-2011 - Mr Ashok Jindal, Mr. S.K Gaule, JJ. Appearance: Shri A.K.Prasad, Jt.CDR, Shri V.K.Singh, SDR Shri A.K.Prabhakar, JDR for appellant Shri U.L.Madane, Consultant for sl.no. 2 3 Ms. Aparna Hirandogi, advocate for sl.no.4 Shri R.G.Sheth,advocate for sl.no.5 Shri S.B.Awate, Consultant for sl.no.6,8,10 Shri A.S.Sakpal, advocate for sl.no.9 Shri D.R.Gadekar, Consultant for sl.no.12. Per : Ashok Jindal These appeals are filed by the Revenue against the impugned Orders-in-Appeal. As the issue involved in all the matters is commo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf of the Revenue on the following points:- that in the amendment to Sec.158 of the Finance Act, the provisions of the Act has been modified with effect from 16.7.1997 by inserting provision to Sec.68(1) making the customer of the goods transport operators as the person liable to pay service tax, to the credit of the Central Government. Section 71A was inserted by making the customer liable to furnish service tax return within six months from the day on which the Finance Bill, 2003 receives the assent of the President i.e. 14.5.2003. Sec. 94 was amended to make the rule for furnishing return under Sec.71A. Rule 7A was inserted in the Service Tax Rules with effect from 14.5.2003 providing for furnishing return in case of taxable service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 4.11.2004 were clearly within the prescribed period of one year. Therefore, the show-cause notices are within time and respondents cannot run way from their liability to pay service tax on goods transport operator's services. Hence, the impugned orders are to be set aside. 5. None appeared on behalf of the respondents at sl.no. 1, 7, 11 13 although notices of hearing were served.Since the issue involved is common, it was decided to dispose of these appeals alongwith other appeals. 6. For sl.no.6,8,10, Shri S.B.Awate, Consultant appeared on behalf of the respondent and submitted that the show-cause notices were issued to them on 19.4.02 for the period 16.11.97 to 1.6.98 and no corrigendum has been issued to the show-cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, from 10.9.2004, the show-cause notice could be issued within one year and in the case of Mangalam Cement Ltd. , the show cause notice was issued on 4.11.2004 and not prior to 10.9.2004. Therefore, the decision in the case of Mangalam Cement Ltd. is not applicable to the facts of these cases. She further submitted that the Larger Bench decision in the case of Agauta Sugar Chemicals (supra) supports the impugned order. 8. Shri R.G. Sheth, ld.advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent at sl.no.5 and Shri A.S.Sakpal. advocate appearing on behalf of respondent at sl.no.9 accepted the arguments advanced by Ms. Aparna Hirandogi. The advocates submitted that in these cases corrigendum and show-cause notice are issued before 10.9.2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agree with the arguments advanced by Ms.Aparna Hirandogi that while passing the order, the Hon'ble apex court has not considered the amendment to Sec.73 on 10.9.2004. In fact, in 2004, Sec.73 was substituted by Finance Act, 2004 with effect from 10.9.2004. Prior to that substitution, it applies to a case where return was to be filed under Sec.70 but not to the case where it was to be filed under Sec.71A.The substituted section said to cover Sec.71A read with Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1944. As the respondents are to file return as per amended Sec.73 with effect from 10.9.2004 and which was not considered by the Hon'ble apex court, therefore, the decision in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.(supra) is not relevant to decide the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time. Admittedly, in all the cases before us, the show-cause notices as well as the corrigenda have been issued prior to 10.9.2004. Therefore, the decision in the case of Mangalam Cement Ltd. is not relevant to the facts of these cases. We have gone through the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Pandurang SSK Ltd ors vide order No.A/83-94/11/CSTB/C.I dated 15.2.2011 on a similar set of facts, where the show-cause notices were issued in December, 2001 for the period from 16.11.97 to 1.6.98 for demand of service tax on the services availed by them from goods transport operators for transportation of materials to their factories and this Tribunal, considering the decisions in the case of Mangalam Cements ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
