9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 244 - AT - Service TaxGoods transport operator services - period 16.07.97 to 02.06.98 as per the retrospective amendment to the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that - FAA held in favour of the assessee by relying upon the judgment in the case of Welspun Gujarat Stahl Rohren Ltd. (2010 (3) TMI 583 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) and also in the case of Eimco Elecon Ltd. (2010 (7) TMI 477 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT). As in the appellant s own case, Division Bench of the Tribunal, Delhi has held in their favour holding that a show cause notice issued prior to retrospective amendment can be adjudicated while any show cause notice issued after amendment is hit by the limitation - same issue in the assessee s own case is decided in their favour by the Division Bench of the Tribunal, the impugned order passed by the first appellate authority is correct, legal and does not suffer any infirmity. The appeal filed by the Revenue is devoid of merits and hence is rejected.
Issues involved:
Service tax liability on goods transport operator services received during a specific period due to retrospective amendment to the Finance Act, 1994. Analysis: Issue 1: Service tax liability on goods transport operator services The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order demanding service tax for a specific period under the Finance Act, 1994. The show cause notice was issued to the appellant for demanding service tax, interest, and penalties. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands and penalties. However, the first appellate authority ruled in favor of the respondent-assessee, citing judgments from the High Court of Gujarat and the Tribunal, Delhi. The respondent's consultant argued that a show cause notice issued before the retrospective amendment can be adjudicated, while those issued after the amendment are time-barred. The Tribunal found that the issue involved was the same as in the appellant's own case, where the Division Bench ruled in their favor. Therefore, the impugned order was deemed correct, legal, and without any flaw. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was rejected. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal intricacies involved in determining service tax liability on goods transport operator services during a specific period due to a retrospective amendment to the Finance Act, 1994. The decision provides clarity on the interpretation of relevant laws and precedents, ensuring a fair and just outcome in the case.
|
