2002 (4) TMI 882 - AT - Service Tax

Service Tax Goods Transport Operators (1) Non-filing of service tax return (2) Penalty (3) Demand (4) Limitation

Summary

Issues:
1. Review of order passed by Commissioner directing payment of service tax, interest, and penalty.
2. Applicability of service tax on Goods Transport Operators.
3. Validity of revalidation of Service Tax Rules.
4. Imposition of penalty under Section 117 of the Finance Act.
5. Issue of limitation in raising the demand.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the Commissioner's order directing payment of service tax, interest, and penalty. The appellants held a Registration Certificate for discharging service tax on services provided by goods transport operators. The Commissioner reviewed the Deputy Commissioner's order dropping proceedings and confirmed the demand of service tax, interest, and penalty on the appellants.

2. The appellants argued that service tax on Goods Transport Operators was withdrawn following a Supreme Court judgment. However, the Tribunal found that subsequent revalidation of Service Tax Rules made the appellants liable for service tax. The Tribunal noted that there was no stay on the amended provisions by the Apex Court.

3. The Tribunal rejected the contention that the revalidation of Service Tax Rules was invalid. The appellants were held liable to pay service tax due to the revalidated rules. The Tribunal found no merit in the argument raised by the appellants' counsel against the order-in-review of the Commissioner.

4. The appellants contended that under Section 117 of the Finance Act, no penalty could be imposed. The Tribunal clarified that Section 117 only saved the assessee from prosecution for acts committed before the amendment of the rules. As no prosecution was initiated against the appellants, a penalty was imposed in accordance with Section 77.

5. The appellants attempted to raise the issue of limitation, but the Tribunal found the demand was raised within the stipulated period from the revalidation of relevant provisions. The Tribunal upheld the demand raised within the time limit and dismissed the appeal, affirming the service tax, penalty, and interest on the appellants.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, stating that the appellants were liable to pay the service tax, file returns, and pay interest for the disputed period. The order-in-original was reviewed correctly, and the service tax, penalty, and interest were affirmed on the appellants. The appeal was dismissed for lacking merit.