2010 (9) TMI 1054 - HC - Central Excise

Service Tax registration under Rule-3 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with Section 69 of Service Tax Act, 1994 not obtained - Form ST-3B along with TR-6 in triplicate not filed - Held that - the assessee could not be faulted with for not having filed a return after getting himself registered more particularly, when one considers the language employed in the Proviso below sub-Section (1) of Section 68 and the provisions of Section 71A of the Finance Act, 1994, it is not possible to state that the language of the Statute is not clear that any default can be fastened on the respondent-assessee. The Court, therefore took the view that in absence of any infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal, the impugned order of Tribunal does not merit interference - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Impugned order made by the Tribunal
2. Recovery of service tax for goods transport operator service
3. Time-barred demand of Service Tax

Analysis:
1. The appellant, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi Commissionerate, filed a Tax Appeal questioning the legality of the order made by the Tribunal. The appellant raised substantial questions of law regarding the validity of the impugned order. The respondent, a manufacturing unit registered under Central Excise, was required to pay Service Tax under the category of 'Goods Transport Operator'. The dispute revolved around the service tax liability of the respondent for the period from 16.11.1997 to 02.06.1998. The Tribunal set aside the order passed by the adjudicating Commissioner and the Appellate Commissioner, citing that the demand of Service Tax from the respondent was time-barred. The High Court, in previous judgments, clarified that until the substitution of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, the provisions could not be retrospectively applied. The Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's order and dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose from the impugned order.

2. The appellant contended that the respondent failed to obtain Service Tax registration and did not comply with the requirements of Form ST-3B along with TR-6, as mandated by Rule 7A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued, leading to a demand for Service Tax, interest, and penalty. Despite the respondent's challenge, both the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand. However, the Tribunal allowed the respondent's appeal, granting consequential reliefs. The High Court, following its previous judgments, emphasized that the language of the Statute did not clearly establish any default on the respondent's part. Therefore, the Court dismissed the Tax Appeal, aligning with its earlier decisions.

3. The issue of the time-barred demand of Service Tax was a crucial aspect of the case. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the order based on the statute of limitations was pivotal. The High Court, drawing from its previous rulings, reiterated that until the relevant statutory provisions were substituted, retrospective application could not be enforced. The Court emphasized that the respondent could not be faulted for non-compliance, given the statutory ambiguity. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the absence of any substantial question of law arising from the impugned order.