9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered together and a common order is passed. 2. The appellant was the recipient of goods transport operator(GTO) service for the period from 16/11/1997to 02/06/1998 (period in respect of which tax was leviable on goods transport operator service). In terms of Section 65 and 66 of Finance Act, 1994 as amended by the validatiing provisions of Section 116 and 117 of the Finance Act, 2000, a letter was issued to the appellant by the Superintendent of Central Excise vide letter O.C. No.406/2003 dt. 11/11/2003 followed by a reminder dt. 12/12/2003. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to consider the events leading to the final amendment of provisions with retrospective effect made by the Government in 2003. 3. Levy was introduced in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allenging the retrospective amendments carried out in 2003. As per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, all the service receivers were liable to file returns before 28/11/2003 and make the payment of service tax. 6. Even though the matter came up to be finally decided upholding the retrospective amendment, in respect of the petitions filed in 2005, that decision is not relevant as far as the recovery of the tax and proceedings for recovery of the tax are concerned which were already permitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court earlier in November 2003. 7. In the case of the present appellant, when the retrospective amendment was carried out in the year 2000, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the recovery of the service tax of Rs. 34,38,570/- and since the appellant had already paid the amount, proposal was to appropriate the amount already paid and interest was demanded and penalty was proposed to be levied. After completion of proceedings, the demand for service tax was upheld, amount deposited was appropriated, interest was demanded and a penalty of Rs. 1,36,800/- was imposed in addition to penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 which has not been quantified. 9. In appeal No.ST/84/2008, the demand for service tax with interest and penalty imposed is the subject matter. 10. After payment of the service tax in September 2005, on 24/01/2006 appellant filed a refund claim on the ground that no show-cause notice had bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view in favour of the assessees in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd., were made good in the Finance Act, 2003 which came to be subsequently held valid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Under the circumstances, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. would not be applicable to the present case. At this stage, it would be appropriate to take note of the fact that the Tribunal had relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati Vs. UOI [1998(112) ELT 365 (SC)] and in respect of this decision, finally the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the view that after the amendments made in 2003, the assessees were required to file returns and pay the tax. 13. The learned cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er issued on 11/11/2003. In view of the stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the letter dt. 11/11/2003, the stand taken by the Revenue that show-cause notice could not have been issued till the disposal of the writ petition filed by the appellant is correct. 15. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. I have already reproduced the order of the Hon'ble High Court. In first paragraph of the order, the Honble High Court has considered and stated as to what exactly is the petition. In this paragraph, it has been stated that appellant was seeking stay of further proceedings pursuant to the letter dt. 11/11/2003. I agree with the submission that further proceedings pursuant to the letter dt. 11/11/2003 would be issue of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is settled law that once service tax liability is upheld, the interest liability also has to be upheld. Therefore there cannot be any dispute as regards payment of interest. In this case, the appellant has not paid the interest. The appellant should pay the interest within three months from the date of this decision. The officers concerned of the Department are requested to ensure that within a month from the date of this order, the interest is calculated and communicated to the appellant so that appellant can pay the same. There will be no harm if the assessee themselves calculate and pay the same. 18. As regards penalties, the learned AR submitted that imposition of penalty is perfectly in order and needs no interference. There was d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
