9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [P. Karthikeyan, Technical Member.]— 1. M/s. EID Parry (India) Ltd., Nellikuppam and M/s. EID Parry (India) Ltd., Thiyagavalli, availed Goods Transport Operators' Service (GTO) during 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998 and deposited the service tax due of Rs. 6,45,607 and Rs. 1,53,313 respectively in November, 2003 under protest. Following the Tribunal's order in LH Sugars Factories Ltd. v. CCE [1994-2006] STT 509 (New Delhi -CESTAT), they preferred refund of the amounts paid, in April, 2004. The Deputy Commissioner Cuddalore, issued show-cause notices and confirmed the service tax due already paid by the appellants together with interest and penalty. The assessee filed similar appeals before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Law Ministry vide U.O. No. 826/01 /ADV/CHN dated 29-3-2001 to the same effect. It was also submitted that in Laghu Udyog Bharati's case (supra), the Supreme Court had evolved two main principles: (1) That the assessee as defined under section 65(5)/65(6) was not wide enough to reach the user of the service and the rules contemplating the tax imposition of such persons was ultra vires . (2) It was only such assessee as defined under section who should file returns and submit themselves for assessment. The Validation Act, 2000 had cured the first anomaly as pointed out by the Hon'ble Apex Court but the second anomaly, namely such assessees should also file return and submit for assessment remained unremedied. The second deficienc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also did not fall under section 158 of Finance Act, 2003 and therefore, there was no obligation on their part to file any returns or pay tax. The Law Ministry's opinion cited also supported this view of the appellants. Only such categories of persons against whom proceedings had been initiated or pending during the stipulated period should comply with the further condition of filing returns under section 71(A). No proceedings had been initiated or had been pending against the appellants during the relevant period as contemplated in section 117 and, therefore, the rigours of Finance Act, 2003 did not apply to their case. The appellants also submitted that the Commissioner had relied on a stay order of the Tribunal in deciding their appeal. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice tax due in November, 2003. The appeals seek to set aside the impugned orders which affirmed the above service tax liabilities and rejected the claim for refund of the same in the orders of the original authority. The amounts paid in November, 2003 are legal dues from the appellants in terms of Finance Act, 2000. Section 71(A) enacted vide Finance Act, 2003 required such assessees of Goods Transport Operators' service also to file returns within six months from the day on which the Finance Act, 2003 received the assent of the President. The appellants had filed returns though delayed by a couple of days in each case for which the appellants were imposed a penalty of Rs. 400 in respect of the assessee's Nellikuppam unit and Rs. 200 in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
