9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1041X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hra, learned AR appearing for the Revenue and Shri Jitin Singhal, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-assessee, I find that the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of different kind of excisable goods. They were receiving the services of goods transport operator during the period 16.11.97 to 1.6.98. In terms of provisions of rule 2(i)(d)(xvi) and (xvii) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 a recipient of services of GTA were to pay the service tax. The said Rule was struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati vs. Union of India [ 1999 (112) ELT 365 (SC)]. 3. Thereafter the law was amended retrospectively vide Finance Bill 2000 and 2003 and the recipient of GTA services were made liable to pay the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preme Court in the case of L H Sugar Factory Ltd., all the appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected. The said decision of the Tribunal was appealed against by the Revenue before the High Court of Chhattisgarh vide their order dated 5.12.2012, the Hon'ble High Court set aside the same inasmuch detailed facts were not stated in the said order. The Hon'ble High Court also directed that law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Gujarat Ambuja reported as [2005 (120) ECR 177 (SC)] would also be taken into account. 6. Accordingly the present appeals filed by the Revenue stand listed again. 7. The notice stand issued to the respondent in terms of section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. Admittedly said notice stand issued after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeals differ from the issue involved in the Supreme Court decision in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. inasmuch as the respondent in the present case are not challenging the validity of the amendment. 10. Apart from the above, I also find demands issued in the year 2002 for the period 16.11.97 to 1.6.98 are barred by limitation. Apart from the fact that original adjudicating authority has himself not imposed any penalty on the respondents on the ground of absence of any suppression or mis-statement, there are various decisions of the Tribunal as upheld by the High Court, laying down that in such a scenario, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. It may be seen that there were number of cases involving more or less id ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
