TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal grants appellants' appeal, setting aside service tax order based on Supreme Court ruling.</h1> <h3>TRACTORS & FARM EQUIPMENTS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI</h3> TRACTORS & FARM EQUIPMENTS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI - 2007 (8) S.T.R. 397 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:1. Appeal for early disposal.2. Service tax on Goods Transport Operator service.3. Applicability of Supreme Court judgment.4. Contrary stand of the Department.5. Apex Court's admission of Civil Appeals.6. Impugned orders and appeals dismissal.Issue 1: Appeal for early disposalThe appellants filed an application for early disposal of their appeal, which was granted by the Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was then disposed of finally at that stage after hearing both sides.Issue 2: Service tax on Goods Transport Operator serviceThe appellants had received Goods Transport Operator (GTO) service during a specific period but had not paid service tax on it. The Department issued a show cause notice demanding service tax on the service and proposed penalties. The original authority confirmed the tax demand, interest, and penalties under relevant sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The appeal against this order was filed by the party.Issue 3: Applicability of Supreme Court judgmentThe Tribunal noted that the issue was covered in favor of the appellants by previous decisions of the Bench, citing a Final Order that stated the appellants were not liable to pay service tax on GTO service during the specified period. This decision was based on a Supreme Court judgment that quashed the provision of Service Tax Rules, 1994, making recipients of GTO service not liable to pay service tax during that period.Issue 4: Contrary stand of the DepartmentThe appellants argued that the Department's stand in certain Civil Appeals was contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in a related case. The Tribunal held that the decision in the previous case was still applicable, as the mere admission of Civil Appeals by the apex Court did not stay the operation of the Tribunal's orders.Issue 5: Apex Court's admission of Civil AppealsThe appellants pointed out that the apex Court had admitted Civil Appeals by the Department in related cases. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the decision in the previous case was currently valid and upheld the impugned orders based on that decision.Issue 6: Impugned orders and appeals dismissalUltimately, the Tribunal sustained the impugned orders confirming the tax demand, interest, and penalties, and dismissed all the appeals filed by the party. However, following the discussion and analysis, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on legal precedents and interpretations of relevant laws and judgments.
TaxTMI 