TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 478
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the following substantial questions of law: "C.M.A.No.599 of 2007: 1. Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of L.H. Sugar Factory is not applicable to the present case of the appellant? 2. Whether the Tribunal is right in ignoring the fact that the demands are time barred and when the same was not covered by the tenet of the retrospective validation? C.M.A.Nos.2511 & 2512 of 2007: (a) Whether the Tribunal is right in discriminating between the appellant and other similarly placed assesses? (b) Whether the Tribunal is right in ignoring the fact that the demands are time barred and when the same was not covered by the tenet of the retrospective validation? (c) Whether the Tribuna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... brought under service tax with effect from 16.11.1997. There was a wide protest by the transporters for levy of service tax and the same was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati Vs. Union of India reported in 1999 (112) ELT 365 (SC) struck down the provisions of Service Tax Rules, thereby making the service receiver liable to pay service tax. Consequently, amendments were brought to Finance Act, 2000, whereby the service receiver was liable to pay service tax. The said amendment was challenged and the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. V. Union of India reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 608 upheld the said amendment. 3, In the present case, the assessee paid the se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eceived the service of the Goods Transport Operators, was valid. 8. Following the above-said decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and another (C.M.A.Nos.1308 of 2009 batch dated 31.10.2013), this Court in C.M.A.No.1322 of 2009 dated 4.9.2014 held that the show cause notices issued by the Revenue on the assessee, who received the services of the Goods Transport Operators, was valid. 9. In the present case, the assessee had paid the service tax and claimed refund. Hence, the only issue that arise for consideration in the above appeals is whether the appellant is entitled for refund of the service tax already paid. 10. It is seen that in the case of Gujara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eplaced and the decision has thereby ceased to be relevant for the purposes of construing the present provisions (vide Ujagar Prints vs. Union of India)." 11. From a reading of the above-said decision of the Supreme Court and that of this Court, it is clear that the users of the service rendered by the Goods Transport Operators are liable to pay service tax. In the present case, the appellant is using the services of the Goods Transport Operators during different periods between 1997 to 1999. Hence, the appellant is liable to pay service tax. Since the appellant has already paid the service tax, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. V. Union of India reported in 2006 (3) S.T.R. 608, the qu....