2008 (4) TMI 77 - AT - Service Tax

Appellants had received Goods Transport Operators Service (GTO service) during the period from 16.11.1997 to 1.6.1998 but had not filed service tax returns or paid service tax SCN issued - held that a person receiving taxable service from GTO/C&F Agent was not covered by the provisions of Section 70 & 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 and that any demand notice issued to such a person by the department under Section 73 was not maintainable - demand & penalties are set aside

Summary

Issues:
1. Change of appellant's name in the appeal application.
2. Waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery.
3. Demand of service tax for Goods Transport Operators Service (GTO service) during a specific period.
4. Interpretation of Sections 70, 71, 71A, and 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 in relation to service tax liability.

Analysis:
1. The first issue addressed in the judgment pertains to the change of the appellant's name in the appeal application. The appellant sought to change their name to "Ramsar Tex Private Ltd." The tribunal allowed the application based on the submission of a "Fresh Certificate of Incorporation" indicating the change of name, thereby officially changing the appellant's name in the Memorandum of Appeal and the stay application.

2. Moving on to the second issue regarding the waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery, the tribunal examined the records and noted that the issue in the appeal had been settled by previous tribunal decisions based on the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. L.H. Sugar Factories Pvt. Ltd. The tribunal, after dispensing with predeposit, proceeded with the final disposal of the appeal.

3. The third issue involved the demand of service tax for Goods Transport Operators Service (GTO service) received by the appellants during a specific period. Despite the original authority dropping the demand, the revisional authority confirmed the tax demand under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. The tribunal referred to previous cases, including the L.H. Sugar Factories case, to establish that the demand of tax for the mentioned period was not sustainable, ultimately setting aside the demand and penalties on the appellants, thereby allowing the appeal.

4. Lastly, the interpretation of Sections 70, 71, 71A, and 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 in relation to service tax liability was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The tribunal analyzed the contentions made by both parties regarding the applicability of Section 73 (1) (a) to the service recipient filing returns under Section 71A. The tribunal, aligning with the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the L.H. Sugar Factories case, concluded that the legal proposition presented by the appellants was not sustainable, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants based on established legal principles and interpretations.