9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provisions of Section 71A of the Finance Act, 1994, it is not possible to state that the language of the Statute is so clear that any default can be fastened on the respondent-assessee - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. ST/132/2009 - Order No. A/10328/2018 - Dated:- 8-2-2018 - Dr. D. M. Misra, Hon ble Member ( Judicial ) And Mr. Raju, Hon ble Member ( Technical ) For the Appellant : Shri J. Nagori, Authorised Representative For the Respondent : Shri P.M. Dave, Advocate ORDER Per : Raju This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against order of Commissioner setting aside the demand of Service Tax and imposition of penalty on the appellant in respect of services received under the head of G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to strike down the Sections 112, 113 and Section 158 of the Finance Act, 2003. During the proceedings, the Hon'ble High Court granted them interim relief subject to an undertaking to the extent that in the event the petition was dismissed, the appellant shall pay the Service Tax due within a month from the date of decision. The said undertaking was filed on 29.11.2003. The Hon'ble High Court vide their order dated 3.8.2005 relying on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 17.3.2005 in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2005 (182) ELT 33 (SC) dismissed the respondent petition. 2.3 Learned AR pointed out that the respondent did not pay the Service Tax and provided the necessary data only when they wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Dhrangadhra Chemcials Works Ltd. vide Tax Appeal No. 14 of 2005 order dated 14.11.2008. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the identical matter was decided by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Eimco Elecon Ltd. (supra) , wherein following was observed: - 1. The case of the appellant-revenue as propounded by learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondent-assessee availed services of Goods Transporter Operator between period from 16-7-1997 to 2-6-1998. Respondent-assessee was liable to pay Service Tax as recipient of such services. The adjudicating authority, after issuing show cause notice made an order on 28-2-2005 ordering re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of tax, etc. 3. It is not in dispute that till Finance Act, 2003 introduced a Proviso under sub-section (1) of Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 the liability to pay Service Tax was on the person providing taxable service, and not on the recipient. Simultaneously Section 71A came to be introduced by the Finance Act, 2003 casting the liability on the service recipient to file a return within six months from the date on which the Finance Bill, 2003 receives assent of the President. However, even after this amendment, the Apex Court has noted that in absence of Section 71A of the Finance Act, 1994 (which has retrospectively been introduced w.e.f. 16-7-1997) appearing in Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 no levy of any short duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
