2007 (7) TMI 189 - AT - Service Tax

Assessee receiving Goods Transport Operators Service during the period 16.11.97 to 2.6.98 but had not filed service tax returns or paid tax held that in view of case Sri Venkatesa Mills Ltd. Vs CCE Coimbatore, 2007 (80) RLT 824 (CESTAT-Che.), assessee is not liable to any tax demand, interest & penalty not sustainable

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand for service tax and penalties for Goods Transport Operators Service.
2. Review of decision by Commissioner under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Applicability of previous decisions in similar cases.
4. Interpretation of Sections 70, 71, 71A, and 73 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:

1. The appellants received Goods Transport Operators Service (GTO service) but did not file service tax returns or pay tax for the period 16.11.97 to 2.6.98. Show-cause notices were issued by the department demanding tax and proposing penalties. The original authority dropped the proposals, but the Commissioner reviewed the decision under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994, and passed orders demanding service tax with interest and imposing penalties. This led to the present appeals and accompanying applications.

2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, the Member (Judicial) decided that the appeals needed to be summarily disposed of. After dispensing with predeposit, the appeals were taken up for consideration.

3. The appellants' consultant argued that the issue had been settled against the Revenue in previous cases. Reference was made to Final Orders passed in similar cases where demands for service tax were set aside. The Senior Departmental Representative (SDR) reiterated the Commissioner's findings.

4. The Member (Judicial) found that the issue was covered by the decisions cited by the consultant. The legal proposition made by the appellants regarding the interpretation of Sections 70, 71, 71A, and 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, was deemed unsustainable in light of the apex court's ruling in a related case. Following this decision, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, and the Member's decision based on legal precedents and interpretations of relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1994.