2015 (10) TMI 2091 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of Service Tax Liability Demand for Service Tax made under the head Goods Transport Operator Revenue issued SCN in context of the same under the provisions of Section 158 of the Finance Act, 2003 Held That - Impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed Decision made in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara Vs Eimco Elecon Ltd 2010 (7) TMI 477 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT followed Decided in favour of the Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of Service Tax on 'Goods Transport Operator' service received by the Appellants during a specific period.
2. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 regarding the liability to pay Service Tax.
3. Applicability of retrospective amendments in Sections 68 and 71A of the Finance Act, 1994.
4. Consideration of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in a similar case.

Analysis:

1. The Appellants, engaged in manufacturing Aluminum Conductors, received a show cause notice demanding Service Tax on 'Goods Transport Operator' service during a particular period. The issue revolved around the interpretation of the Finance Act, 1994, specifically regarding the liability to pay Service Tax on such services.

2. The Tribunal referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in a similar case involving a show cause notice for the same service. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the need for clarity in statutory language for imposing any fault on the assessee. The introduction of Section 71A by the Finance Act, 2003, was highlighted as a crucial factor in determining the liability of the service recipient.

3. The Tribunal emphasized that until the substitution of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, retrospective amendments in Sections 68 and 71A could not be applied. It was noted that the language of the statute was not clear enough to attribute any default to the respondent-assessee, especially considering the provisions of Section 71A and the Proviso under sub-section (1) of Section 68.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's decision. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order in favor of the Appellants based on the precedents and interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1994.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad addressed the demand for Service Tax on 'Goods Transport Operator' service, interpreting the Finance Act, 1994, and considering the applicability of retrospective amendments. The decision was influenced by the clarity of statutory language and the precedents set by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in similar cases.