TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 183/2012 - FO/A/76259/2017 - Dated:- 5-5-2017 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Judicial Member Shri. S. P. Majumder, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Suptd. (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per: Shri P. K. Choudhary Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 2. By a Show Cause Notice dated 13.11.2002, Service Tax was demanded on GTA service during the period from 16.11.1997 to 01.06.1998. 3. I find that the issue is no more res-integra in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Balasore Alloys Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, BBSR-I vide order No. FO/A/75580/2017 dated 20.01.2017. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below :- The Hon ble Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Central Excise has reason to believe that by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under Section 70 for any prescribed period or to disclose wholly or truly all material facts required for verification of the assessment under Section 71, the value of taxable service for that quarter has escaped assessment or has been under assessed, or any sum has erroneously been refunded, or (b) notwithstanding that there has been no omission or failure as mentioned in Clause [a] on the part of the assessee, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or, as the case may be Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise has, in consequence of information in his possession, reason to believe that the value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) of the Act, 1994 proposing for recovery of tax liability. The Hon ble Supreme Court held that the liability to file return is cast on the assessee only under Section 71A which was introduced in the Finance Bill, 2003. Thus, during the period in question no notice could have been issued under Section 73 for non filing or the return under Section 70 as there was no requirement for filing of return by the service Recover. Hence, demand of interest and penalty cannot be sustained. 6 The lower authorities strongly relied upon the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of G ujrat Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. UOI reported in 2005 (182) E.L.T 33 (S.C.). In that case, the Hon ble Supreme Court upheld the validity of law of retrospe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
