TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 887X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting details from goods transport operators in order to work out their tax liability and in view of the fact that the same explanation has been accepted by the Tribunal in the case of Videocon Narmada Electronics Ltd. v. CCE, Baroda (Order No. CI/2540/WZB/2002, dated 14-8-2002.) 2. Now I take up the stay applications for hearing. All the above captioned applications for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts (as per Annexure A) arise out of the different Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise in terms of Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1944, directing all the applicants to work out service tax payable by them during the period from 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998 and pay the same along with the interest till date of the payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or any Court, Tribunal or other authority, sub-clause (xii) and (xvii) of clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of Service Tax Rules, 1944 as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Service Tax (Amendment) Rules, 1998 shall be deemed to be valid as if the said sub-clause had been in force at all material times. In the present impugned orders, the Commissioner has held that in view of the retrospective validation of the Service tax, all the applicants were required to pay Service tax on the gross amount of the transport charges, excluding insurance charges, paid by them to the goods transport operator. He directed the applicants to work out the tax payable and pay the same along with interest. The applicants have worked out the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only propose recovery of interest which according to him, is not payable if the tax itself is not payable, and for recovery of penalty, which has not been imposed by the Commissioner in revision, as per the relevant provisions of the Act. He, therefore, prays for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts of service tax and interest. 5. The arguments of Shri Patel are adopted by Shri R.C. Saxena, counsel for the applicants M/s. Jayant Oil Mills Ltd. 6. The prayer is opposed by Shri P.K. Agarwal, DR. who submits that the notices state that the applicants were liable to pay service tax but have, not deposited the same and pleads that this may be construed as a proposal for recovery of service tax. He submits that validation provisions are wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons. The basic issue as to whether Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2000 empowers demands and collection of service tax from those who availed of goods transport service, cannot be determined at this interim stage and will be considered in detail only when the appeals are taken up for hearing. The plea of limitation is also debatable, having regard to the language of Rule 2(1)(d)(xvii) and Section 65(41)(M) and Sections 69 and 70 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, I see prima facie force in the plea of the applicants that the show cause notices do not call upon them to show cause against recovery and collection of service tax, although, the notices state that the assessees are required to pay service tax in accordance with Section 68 and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
