2008 (4) TMI 86 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant, who are the receiver of the Goods Transporter s Agency Services - show cause notice for the period 16.11.97 to 01.06.98, was issued on 18.4.06, raising demand of service tax on the appellant - Tribunal in number of identically situated assessees, has held that belated issuance of show cause notices were barred by limitation - demand in the present case is barred by limitation

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of the receiver of Goods Transporter's Agency Services to pay service tax.
2. Retrospective amendment to Finance Act, 2002 affecting service tax liability.
3. Bar on limitation for belated issuance of show cause notices.
4. Pre-deposit condition for appeal in service tax matters.
5. Applicability of previous Tribunal decisions on similar matters.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The judgment dealt with the liability of the receiver of Goods Transporter's Agency Services to pay service tax. The appellant, as the receiver of such services, was issued a show cause notice for the period in question. The Tribunal observed that the demand for service tax on the appellant was barred by limitation, following the decision in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. Vs. CCE Meerut-II, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal also referred to other identically situated assessees where belated show cause notices were held to be time-barred.

Issue 2: The show cause notice was issued post a retrospective amendment to the Finance Act, 2002, which made the recipient of services liable to pay the tax. The Tribunal considered this amendment and its impact on the appellant's liability. However, based on the previous decisions and the bar on limitation for such cases, the Tribunal held the demand in the present case as barred by limitation, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and granting relief to the appellant.

Issue 3: The Tribunal emphasized the bar on limitation for belated issuance of show cause notices in cases similar to the appellant's. Citing the decision in the case of DCLW Limited and other Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal reiterated that such belated notices were not sustainable and provided relief to the appellant based on this legal principle.

Issue 4: The judgment highlighted the dispensation with the condition of pre-deposit of service tax and penalties on the appellant before proceeding to decide the appeal. This indicates the Tribunal's consideration of the financial burden on the appellant in service tax matters and the importance of allowing appeals without imposing stringent pre-deposit conditions.

Issue 5: The Tribunal relied on previous decisions, such as the case of CCE Vadodara Vs. M/s Welspun Gujarat Stahl Rohren Ltd., to support its decision in the present case. By following the ratio of these decisions and settling the issue of limitation and liability in line with past judgments, the Tribunal provided consequential relief to the appellant, aligning with established legal principles and precedents in service tax matters.