2016 (3) TMI 716

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to decide the same as it will not serve any purpose to keep the appeal pending. 2. It is seen that the period involved in the present appeal is 1997-1998 for which the service tax liability stand confirmed as recipient of GTA services, by way of issue of show cause notice dated 8.11.2004 on account of pending litigation in respect of GTA services requiring the recipient of service, to pay the service tax and in view of the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati vs. Union of India [2006 (2) STR 276 (SC)], the provisions of the Finance Act, 2004 was amended with retrospect effect. It is seen that in the light of said amendments, show cause notice were being issued by the Revenue in number of similar situate ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the said order as under: "10. Because there were conflicting decisions of the co-ordinate Benches on the issue whether recovery provisions would apply to the impugned short levies for which Show Cause Notices were issued after 10-9-2004 the matter was refereed to Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Appeal Nos. ST/32, 88/2007 and 532/2006 as reported at 2007 (8) S.T.R. 496 (Tri.-Del.). In this decision the Larger Bench of Tribunal held that the Show Cause Notices issued in the matter after amendment of Section 73 by Finance Act, 2004 are sustainable. 11. We note that notwithstanding the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal as discussed above, various High Courts have decided that de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t be made applicable despite retrospective amendment in Sections 68 and 71A of the Finance Act, 1994. In these circumstances, admittedly, the assessee could not be faulted with for not having filed a return after getting himself registered. More particularly, when one considers the language employed in the Proviso below sub-section (1) of Section 68 and the provisions of Section 71A of the Finance Act, 1994, it is not possible to state that the language of the Statute is so clear that any default can be fastened on the respondent-assessees." 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 re....