9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ff Act, 1985. During the relevant period, i.e., 1.1.2005 to 31.03.2007, the appellant had not discharged service tax on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services under Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 even though being the consignor of the goods. A show-cause notice was consequently issued on the basis of audit objection dated 3.4.2008 for recovery of the Service Tax amount of Rs.1,24,684/- along with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty. They filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who in turn rejected their appeal and hence, the present appeal. 3. The learned advocate at the outset has submitted that out of total confirmed demand of Rs.1,24,684/- they have admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n'ble Supreme Court as reported at 2019 (29) GSTL J71 (SC). 5. In his rejoinder, the learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that Section 65(50b) was amended with effect from 1.3.2007 and the period involved in the present case is prior to 1.3.2007 where issuance of consignment note has been the basis to attract Service Tax on GTA Service. Therefore, the judgments cited by the learned Authorised Representative is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both sides. The goods transport agency as defined under Section 65(50b) during the relevant period reads as follows: Section 65(50b) "goods transport agency" means any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... note" and the said amendment is applicable prospectively, therefore, the judgment cited by the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue is not applicable to the facts of the present case. On the other hand, the judgments cited by the learned advocate and the Board's Circular are squarely applicable to the period of dispute. 8. In these circumstances, the impugned order is modified to the extent of upholding demand of Rs.5,603/- along with interest and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994; and the order confirming the balance amount of demand with interest and penalty imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be sustained, accordingly set aside. 9. The impugned order is modified and appeal is partially ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
