AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (7) TMI 739
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l.no.9 Shri D.R.Gadekar, Consultant for sl.no.12. Per : Ashok Jindal These appeals are filed by the Revenue against the impugned Orders-in-Appeal. As the issue involved in all the matters is common, all the appeals are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The facts are common like as, during the period from 16.11.1997 to 01.06.1998, the respondents availed the services of Goods Transport Operators. Therefore, they were served with show-cause notices alleging that they failed to apply for service tax registration, failed to collect and pay the appropriate service tax and failed to file ST-3 returns on the due dates from time to time and thereby they had contravened the provisions of Section 69 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the President i.e. 14.5.2003. Sec. 94 was amended to make the rule for furnishing return under Sec.71A. Rule 7A was inserted in the Service Tax Rules with effect from 14.5.2003 providing for furnishing return in case of taxable service provided by goods transport operators from the period 16.11.1997 to 1.6.1998 within a period of six months from 14.5.2003 failing which will face interest and penal consequences as provided in the Act were to follow. He further submitted that in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd vs. Union of India reported in 2005(182)ELT 33 (S.C.), the Hon'ble apex court has held that although there was a challenge to the constitutional validity and legality of the levy of service tax is rejected, therefore, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als. 6. For sl.no.6,8,10, Shri S.B.Awate, Consultant appeared on behalf of the respondent and submitted that the show-cause notices were issued to them on 19.4.02 for the period 16.11.97 to 1.6.98 and no corrigendum has been issued to the show-cause notice after amended provisions. He has strongly relied on the decision of L.H.Sugar Factories Ltd. reported in 2005(187)E.L.T. 5 (S.C.) wherein the Hon'ble apex court affirmed the decision of this tribunal holding that liability under Sec.73 of Finance Act, 1994 covers cases of assessee who are liable to file return under Sec.70 ibid and liability to file return being cast on appellants under Sec.71 A ibid, show cause notice issued under Section 73 ibid not maintainable. As no demand has been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ld.advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent at sl.no.5 and Shri A.S.Sakpal. advocate appearing on behalf of respondent at sl.no.9 accepted the arguments advanced by Ms. Aparna Hirandogi. The advocates submitted that in these cases corrigendum and show-cause notice are issued before 10.9.2004. Therefore, the show-cause notices are invalid. 9. Shri D.R. Gadekar, consultant appearing on behalf of the respondent at sl.no.12, apart from accepting the arguments advanced by the consultants/advocates of the co-respondents, further submitted that in their case the appeal has been filed on the ground that the Revenue has challenged the decision in the case of L.H.Sugar Factories Ltd. of the Tribunal before the apex court and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tituted section said to cover Sec.71A read with Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1944. As the respondents are to file return as per amended Sec.73 with effect from 10.9.2004 and which was not considered by the Hon'ble apex court, therefore, the decision in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd.(supra) is not relevant to decide the issue. We have gone through the decision in the case of Mangalam Cement Ltd which was affirmed by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Agauta Sugar & Chemicals(supra) wherein the Tribunal has observed as under:- "In the present case, there is no dispute that the return which was filed as per the prescribed Form ST-3B under Rule 7A was not a periodic return, but a return which was required to be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 15.2.2011 on a similar set of facts, where the show-cause notices were issued in December, 2001 for the period from 16.11.97 to 1.6.98 for demand of service tax on the services availed by them from goods transport operators for transportation of materials to their factories and this Tribunal, considering the decisions in the case of Mangalam Cements Ltd. and Agauta Sugar & Chemicals, has observed that before 10.9.2004, Section 73 of the Finance Act could be invoked for recovery of service tax from a person who was liable to file returns under Section 70 of the Act but omitted/failed to do so. Section 71A, the provision under which recipients of GTO service, like the present assessees, were to filed returns for purposes of assessme....