2006 (12) TMI 90 - AT - Service Tax

Receiving Goods Transport Operators Service during 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998 and after amendment enacted by Finance Act, 2003 assessee deposited the service tax due in November, 2003 under protest - returns had been filed within the time stipulated under the Finance Act, 1994 as amended by FA, 2003 and that the assessment made therein was self-assessment - Every self-assessment is voluntary and there is no scope for protest duty paid pursuant to such assessment are not refundable

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of service tax payment under Goods Transport Operators' Service (GTO) during a specific period.
2. Interpretation of validation provisions in the Finance Act, 2000 and Finance Act, 2003.
3. Obligation of assessees to file returns and pay tax under the relevant provisions.
4. Refund claims and imposition of penalties by the original authority.
5. Compliance with the Finance Act, 2003 and the implications of filing returns under protest.

Issue 1:
The case involved M/s. EID Parry (India) Ltd. availing Goods Transport Operators' Service (GTO) during a specific period and paying service tax under protest. The Deputy Commissioner issued show-cause notices confirming the service tax due, which led to appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).

Issue 2:
The appellants argued that the enactment of validation provisions in the Finance Act, 2000 and subsequent amendments in the Finance Act, 2003, defined the scope of assessees under various sections. They contended that the Validation Act, 2000 and Validation Act, 2003 addressed certain anomalies pointed out by the Supreme Court and clarified the obligations of assessees in terms of filing returns and undergoing assessment.

Issue 3:
The main argument revolved around the obligation of assessees to file returns under the Finance Act, 2003, particularly in cases where recovery of service tax had been initiated during a specific period. The appellants contended that they had fulfilled their obligations by paying the service tax due in November 2003 and filing delayed returns as required by the Finance Act, 2003.

Issue 4:
The original authority rejected the refund claims of the appellants, imposed penalties, and demanded interest. The appeals sought to set aside these decisions, arguing that the amounts paid in November 2003 were legal dues under the Finance Act, 2000, and that the impugned orders were legally sound.

Issue 5:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, citing precedents and clarifications from the Law Ministry. It emphasized that the returns filed under protest were voluntary in the eyes of the law, and any protest in this regard was deemed invalid. The Tribunal upheld the legality of the orders passed by the original authority and rejected the refund claims based on the self-assessment nature of the assessments made.

In conclusion, the judgment analyzed the issues related to service tax payment, validation provisions, obligation of assessees, refund claims, and compliance with the Finance Act, 2003. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the legality of the original authority's orders and emphasizing the voluntary nature of self-assessments and tax payments.