TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1323
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s received transport services from different transport operators during 16.11.1997 to 2.6.1998. The Revenue asked the respondent to pay Service Tax in respect of such services received vide leter dated 24.3.2003 pursuant to the amendment made by the Finance Bill, 2003. The respondents contended that the Finance Bill, 2003 has still not become an Act. They further stated that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has granted them stay from payment of such Service Tax. They also argued that the said proposed amendment under the Section 68, 71 and 71A of the Finance Act have been made only to validate the Service Tax collected from receiver of the services of GTA and in these circumstances, in case the same has not been collected, it cannot be de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eking to demand Service Tax for the period 16.11.1997 to 2.6.1998 and to impose penalty under Section 28 of the Finance Act. The said show-cause notice was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority, however, the said order was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by the said order, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal on various grounds. They sought to distinguish the decision relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of M/s Gujarat Carbon and Industries ltd. 2008 (8) RLT 113 (SC) on the ground that the show-cause notice in the said case was issued prior to amendment made in the Finance Act No. 2 of the Finance Act in 2004, whereas in the instant case the show-cause notice was issued after the amendment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....994 read together and also demanded interest and penalty imposed under Sections 75, 76, 77, 78 and 75-A of the Finance Act, 1994. The appeal filed by the assessee before Commissioner (Appeals) failed and hence, second appeal was preferred before the Tribunal. The assessee succeeded before the Tribunal on the basis of two Apex Court decisions referred to by the Tribunal in the impugned order. 2. According to learned counsel, considering the fact that provisions of Section 73 stood amended by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 w.e.f. 10-9-2004, the show cause notice issued on 11-11-2004 could not be treated to be barred by limitation and Tribunal had committed an error in recording such a finding without recording complete facts in this regard. It w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....994 came to be substituted w.e.f. 10-9-2004 provisions of the said section could not 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-assessee." Similar conclusion was reached by the Tribunal in the respondent s own case reported in 2013 (30) STR 503, wherein Trib....