9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al, Advocate for the Appellants Shri N.J. Kumaresh, SDR, for the Respondent [Order per P. G. Chacko, Member (J)] - After examining the records and hearing both sides, I am of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit, I take up the appeal. 2. The appellants had received Goods Transport Operator's service during the period 16.11.1997 -1.6.1998 but had not paid any service tax thereon under the Finance Act, 1994. They had not filed any service tax return either. The department issued a show-cause notice on 27.12.2000 for recovery of service tax of ₹ 1,26,663/- with interest, under Section 73 r/w Section 71A of the Finance Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal were also raised in the case of Tamilnadu Cements Corporation Ltd. (supra). Therefore, the present case can appropriately be disposed of by following the decision taken by the Division Bench in the case of Tamilnadu Cements Corporation Ltd. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of the order passed by the Division Bench are reproduced below: 2. The appellants had received Goods Transport Operators, Service during the period 16-11-97 to 2-6-98 but had not paid any Service tax thereon under the Finance Act, 1994. Later on, they paid an amount of ₹ 2,36,037/- towards such tax on 13-11-2003. This payment was under protest. The Department issued a show cause notice dated 3-4-2004 for recovering the balance amount of tax. The demand was contes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service from a recipient thereof. In order to make recipients of GTO service liable to pay Service tax for that period, Parliament amended the relevant Rule under the Finance Act, 2000, which came into force on 12-5-2000. Later on, under the Finance Act, 2003, Section 71A was inserted in the Finance Act, 1994. This new provision cast a liability on recipients of GTO service to file returns. In the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd., this Tribunal considered all these amendments and held that the class of persons who fell under Section 71A did not come within the purview of Section 73 and, therefore, SCN issued under Section 73 for recovery of Service tax from such persons were not maintainable. This view was upheld by the Supreme Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
