9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; later, a revised show cause notice was issued in February 2004 post amendment and insertion of Section 71 and Rule 7A in the Finance Act, 1994 and Service Tax Rules, 1994 - it was held by the Tribunal that It is settled law that nothing can be added to a statute, nor can anything be deleted therefrom, by a court, whose function it is to interpret the expressions as they exist in the statute. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL No. ST/85496/2015 - A/87543/2018 - Dated:- 5-10-2018 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri N.S. Patel, Advocate, for appellant Shri Dilip Shinde, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ari SSK Ltd. 2011 (24) STR 412 (Tri.-Mumbai). Further, he has submitted that the demand issued without quantification, is also unsustainable, in law in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Davangare Cotton Mills Ltd. 1991 (55) ELT 295 (Kar.), JBA Printing Ink Ltd. 1980 (6) ELT 121 (Bom.). Further, he has submitted that the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Bihari Silk Rayon Processing Mills (P) Ltd. 2000 (121) ELT 617 (Tri.-LB) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case since the said decision was rendered in the context of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 as it stood at the relevant time and the present notice is issued under the provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. It has been submitted that the intention was to authorize the Revenue to recover service tax dues from both categories, viz., service providers and recipients of GTO/C F services. According to the learned SDR, the text of Section 73, as it stood prior to 10-9-2004, should be liberally construed so as to achieve the legislative purpose. In this connection, he has relied on CIT, Thiruvananthapuram v. Baby Marine Exports - 2007 (211) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.), Ponds India Ltd. v. CTT, Lucknow - 2008 (227) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.) and Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan - 1994 (70) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.) (paragraphs 24 to 27). It has been argued that courts and tribunals must, if necessary, supplement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 as it stood prior to 10-9-2004. Therefore, the arguments of the learned SDR about legislative intent also do not make the Revenue s case any better. 9. To summarize the results, we hold that the issue involved in all these cases is covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessees by the Tribunal s decision in L.H. Sugar Factories (supra) as affirmed by the Apex Court. Accordingly, the assessees appeals are allowed and the Revenue s appeals are dismissed. Cross objections also stand disposed of for the record. 7. Similar view has also been expressed in the case of Shetkari SSK Ltd. (supra) as under:- 11. Heard both sides. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both side ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dic return, but a return which was required to be filed by the specified date, as contemplated by Section 71A read with Rule 7A. In subclause (c) of clause (i) of Section 73(6)(c) all other cases where no periodic return was involved, the date on which the service tax was to be paid was to be considered as the relevant date. In the present case, the service tax was to be paid within six months from 13-11-2003 by filing the return in the prescribed Form ST-3B under Section 71A read with Rule 7A. The relevant date, therefore, in the present case for filing such return was 14-11-2003. Therefore, even if 14-11- 2003 is considered and not 30-11-2003, which was the date extended by the Supreme Court, the show cause notices issued on 4-11-2004 we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , like the present assessees, were to filed returns for purposes of assessment under Section 71, was not a part of Section 73 of the Act prior to 10-9- 2004. Admittedly, prior to 10-9-2004, the respondents are not liable to file return under Section 70 or Section 71A. Therefore, this Tribunal held that the show-cause notices/corrigenda to show-cause notices issued prior to 10-9-2004 are not in accordance with law. It was held that show-cause notices are not maintainable. Therefore, demands are not sustainable. As per judicial discipline, we are bound by the decision of the coordinate bench of the tribunal. Therefore, following the decision in the case of Pandurang SSK Ltd. Ors (supra) we hold that as in these matters also the show-cause n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
