TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 539
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice tax. The appellant thereafter on coming to understand that, as no show cause notice was issued to them seeking demand of the Service Tax for the period 16-11-1997 to 02-06-1998, filed an application for refund of Service Tax amount of Rs. 36,18,230/- which was paid by them under protest. The refund was rejected vide Order-in-Original dated 26-07-2006. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) contending that they are not liable to pay Service Tax under the category of GTO during the relevant period. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of rejection passed by original authority. Hence the appellant is before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant Ld. Counsel Ms Radhika Shriranja....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riod from 16-11-1997 to 02-06-1998 and the appellant had made the payment of Service Tax. He submitted that the levy of Service tax on GTO was initially imposed on the service providers in the budget 1997. However, the said levy was transferred to receiver of service after introduction of sub clause 17 of 2(1)d of Service Tax Rules under Notification No.42/97 dated. 05-11-1997,w.e.f. 16-11-1997. Thereafter, the Notification No.49/98 dated 02-06-1998 was issued exempting the services provided by Good Transport Operators from the levy of service tax altogether. That such exemption was prospective. The Ld Counsel contended that the appellants as service recipients, are therefore liable to pay service tax for the limited....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice. The decision cited by the Ld. Counsel squarely covers the issue before me. In the case of BPL Telecom Ltd. The Tribunal observed as under: . " the stay application and the appeal are taken up together for the disposal as per law as the issue is covered by judgements of the Apex court and the Tribunal including the decision of this bench. The appellants have been brought under the category of " Goods Transport Operators". This category was brought under the Service Tax net retrospectively under the proviso to Section 68 of the Finance Act, 2000 enacted w.e.f. 12-05-2000. the Apex court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati Vs UOI(112) ELT 365(SC)] =2002-TIOL-162-SC-ST has clearly laid down that retrospective amendment would co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....able nor realisable from the appellant and having paid under protest, it was held that the same is refundable for the period to which the amendment of Finance Act, 2000 relates to. The Tribunal therein held that the amount having been paid under protest, the amount is not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: 8. With the observations and findings aforesaid, it may be concluded that the appellant had deposited the service tax as receiver of service but not as service provider and the Notification No. 41/97 dated 5-11-97 as well as the Notification No. 49/98 dated. 2-6-98 having been rescinded by Notification No. 5/99 dated 28-2-99 and the tax having been paid relating to the ....