TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant had availed the services of goods transport operators (GTO) and paid freight charges to the transporters. However, since they failed to discharge service tax, a show cause notice was issued on 12.11.2002 without quantifying the amount of service tax payable during the said period. A revised show cause notice was again issued to them on 8.11.2004 also without mentioning the amount recoverable from the appellant. On adjudication, the proceeding initiated under the said notices were dropped. Aggrieved by the said order, Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who in turn set aside the order of the adjudicating authority and remanded the matter for quantification of the demand. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Learned Advoca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls (P) Ltd. (supra) in arguing that there is no necessity of quantifying the demand in the show cause notice and by not specifying the amount recoverable, would not make the show cause notice untenable in law. Further, referring to the Larger Bench judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Agauta Sugar & Chemicals (supra), the learned AR submitted that service tax not paid on receipt of GTO services during the relevant period is recoverable from the appellant. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. We find that similar issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of Pandurang SSK Ltd. (supra). In the said case also, the demand related to the period 16.11.1997 to 1.6.1998 for availing of services of goods transport op....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n is accepted, we think, we are doing violence to a basic tenet of law, according to which statutory provisions have to be strictly construed in accordance with the meaning of the words used therein. It is settled law that nothing can be added to a statute, nor can anything be deleted therefrom, by a court, whose function it is to interpret the expressions as they exist in the statute. There was no mention of Section 71A in the text of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 right from the beginning. When the provisions were amended by Parliament under the Finance Act, 2000, the legislature did not add Section 71A to the text of Section 73. Again, the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 were amended extensively under the Finance Act, 2003, but,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on the decision of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. (supra) and we do agree with the arguments advanced by Ms. Aparna Hirandogi that while passing the order, the Hon'ble Apex Court has not considered the amendment to Section 73 on 10-9-2004. In fact, in 2004, Section 73 was substituted by Finance Act, 2004 with effect from 10-9-2004. Prior to that substitution, it applies to a case where return was to be filed under Section 70 but not to the case where it was to be filed under Section 71A. The substituted section said to cover Section 71A read with Rule 7 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. As the respondents are to file return as per amended Section 73 with effect from 10-9-2004 and which was not considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the show-cause notice was issued on 4-11-2004. Therefore, the said show-cause notice was well within the time. Admittedly, in all the cases before us, the show-cause notices as well as the corrigenda have been issued prior to 10-9-2004. Therefore, the decision in the case of Mangalam Cement Ltd., is not relevant to the facts of these cases. We have gone through the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Pandurang SSK Ltd & Ors vide Order No. A/83-94/11/CSTB/C.I., dated 15-2-2011 [2011 (23) S.T.R. 300 (Tri. - Mumbai)] on a similar set of facts, where the show-cause notices were issued in December, 2001 for the period from 16-11-1997 to 1-6- 1998 for demand of service tax on the services availed by them from goods tr....