2006 (9) TMI 515 - AT - Service Tax

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against confirmation of service tax on goods transport operators (GTO) u/s Finance Act, 2003; Validity of demands post-amendment; Applicability of cited judgments on demands issued post-amendment.

Summary:

Issue 1: Appeal against confirmation of service tax on GTO u/s Finance Act, 2003
The appeal arose from an order confirming service tax on GTOs under the Finance Act, 2003, which was retrospectively amended to bring this category under the tax net. Citing the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. L. H. Sugar Factories Ltd., it was argued that demands would only be sustainable if the show cause notice was issued before the amendment. As the notice in this case was issued post-amendment, the demands were deemed not sustainable.

Issue 2: Validity of demands post-amendment
The learned counsel relied on previous judgments, including BPL Telecom Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin, and Laghu Udyog Bharati v. Union of India, to support the argument that demands post-amendment were not valid. The show cause notice in the present case was issued after the amendment to the Finance Act, leading to the conclusion that the demands could not be confirmed.

Issue 3: Applicability of cited judgments on demands issued post-amendment
After careful consideration and perusal of the records, it was established that demands could only be sustained if the show cause notice was issued before the amendment. As the notice in this case was issued post-amendment, the demands were deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the stay application and appeal were allowed with any consequential relief.