TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of GTA Services is within the period of limitation when read with Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994, Section 68 (1) and section 71A of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Shri S.R. Dixit (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the same issue has already been decided by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CCE & Cus, Vadodara-1 vs. Eimco Elecon Limited - [2010 (20) STR 603 (Guj)] under which it has been held that demand under a show cause notice dated 11.11.2004 on the issue of Goods Transport Operator, to be time barred. Learned advocate further relied upon the judgment of CESTAT Delhi in the case of M/s. Kisan Sahakari Chinin Mills vs. CST, Noida - [2012-TIOL-915-CESTAT-DEL.] and CESTAT Bangalore in the case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....7.1997 to 02.6.1998 was considered to be time barred. It is observed that Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has passed the following observation while holding that no short levy can be demanded from the Respondent in that case even after the retrospective amendment was brought into operation by the Revenue as per amendments carried out in Section 68(1) and Section 73 and addition of Section 71A of the Finance Act, 1994. Para 3 and 4 of this judgment are reproduced below:- 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in Mills vs. CST, Noida (supra), that following observations were made in Para 13 while allowing the appeal of the appellant:- 13. We are of the view that when an issue is decided by the High courts and such decisions were not before the Larger Bench of Tribunal when it took the decision on the same issue, we should respectfully follow the order of the High Court's keeping in view of the hierarchy of Courts and Tribunal, so we follow the decisions of the High Courts as cited above and hold that the demands issued after in 2004 or later in respect of the short levies in dispute in the three cases filed by assessees are not maintainable. 6. Learned AR strongly re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sustained as within the period of limitation. As per the provisions, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise may, within a period of one year from the relevant date, serve notice on the persons who have not paid tax or on whom tax has not been levied. The relevant date for this case would be the date on which Service Tax is to be paid under the said Chapter or Rules made there under. The Service Tax was payable along with the return on or before 13-11-2003 and therefore, the period of one year shall be from 13-11-2003 to 12-11-2004. In the interregnum, if show cause notices have been issued, they are valid in the eye of law and they are not barred by limitation. 7. It is observed from the facts of the case before the Madras High Cour....