2015 (2) TMI 524 - AT - Service Tax

Goods Transport Operators - Interest and penalties under Sections 76, 77 & 78 - Held that - Following decision of Precot Mills vs. UOI 2009 (11) TMI 627 - KERALA HIGH COURT and CCE vs. Eimco Elecon Ltd. 2010 (7) TMI 477 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - demand raised vide show-cause notice dated 09.11.2004 is not maintainable. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand under Sections 76 & 77 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Applicability of demand for Service Tax on goods Transport Operators for the period 16.11.1997 to 01.06.1998.
3. Validity of penalties imposed under Sections 76 & 77 of the Finance Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant appealed against the Order-in-Appeal confirming the demand of &8377; 29,786/- along with interest and penalties under Sections 76 & 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The demand was based on the payment of freight charges to goods Transport Operators. The initial show-cause notice was issued on 15.11.2002, but the valuation of Service Tax under Rule 2(1)(d)(xii) was struck down by the Supreme Court. However, the levy of tax was re-validated in terms of Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2000. The revised show-cause notice issued on 09.11.2004 demanded the amount along with interest and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand and imposed penalties, leading to the appellant's appeal.

Issue 2:
The Tribunal considered the history of the levy of Service Tax on Goods Transport Operators. Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2000 made a retrospective amendment to validate the action taken under the Rule struck down by the Supreme Court. Subsequent amendments were made to rectify lacunae in the law, including Section 73 amended by the Finance Act, 2004. Various High Court judgments held demands issued after 10.09.2004 for the period in question as time-barred. Citing cases like Precot Mills vs. UOI and CCE vs. Eimco Elecon Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the demand raised in 2004 was not maintainable, and the appellant was not liable for the Service Tax.

Issue 3:
The Tribunal held that since the demand notice issued on 15.11.2002 had already been dropped, the plea regarding demands issued after 10.09.2004 was not maintainable. As the Service Tax demand was deemed non-maintainable, the question of imposing penalties under Sections 76 & 77 did not arise. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

This detailed analysis showcases the Tribunal's thorough examination of the legal aspects involved in the case, leading to the decision to set aside the demand and penalties imposed under the Finance Act, 1994.