TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 668
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the facility of CENVAT Credit on input, input services in capital goods used in the manufacture of their finished products. The appellant have been issued a show cause notice dated 11.11.2008 demanding Service Tax of Rs. 64,52,012/- under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 by invoking the extended time proviso as provided in the Act. The provisions with regard to demand of interest under Section 75 and penal provisions under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 has also been invoked. The basic premises on which the above mentioned impugned show cause notice have been issued are as follows : - "The Central Government has amended the Finance Act, 1994 for the purpose of levy of service tax on the services provided by goods t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... July 1997 till the passing of Finance Act, 2000. The copy of clause 116 and 117 of the Finance Act, 2000 validating the provisions are attached as annexure 4. Subsequently again vide Finance Act, 2003 vide clause no. 158, the Central Government amended the section 68 induding the proviso by which the recipient of service was specified as a person liable to pay the service tax for the goods transport agency. Section 71A was introduced and it required the recipient of the service to file a retum in respect of service for the respective 16/11/1997 to 02/06/98 within the 6 months to the date on which Finance Act 2003 received the assent of President. Copy of validation made vide Finance Act 2003 is attached as annexu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the impugned show cause notice pertains to the period of 1997-1998 and the subject impugned show cause notice has been issued on 11.11.2008. It has further been submitted that Section 71A was inserted vide Finance Act, 2003 and after that the department could have issued show cause notice for demand of Service Tax under GTA and for C and F agent services within normal period of demand. He thus emphasized that the entire demand is barred by period of limitation as provided under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The learned Advocate has relied upon various decisions to support his arguments in this regard which are as follows : - Commissioner of C. Ex., Meerut-II versus L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. 2006 (3) S.T.R. 715 (SC) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r (Appeals). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the demand of Service Tax is raised against the appellant as recipient of Goods Transport Agency services for the period 16-11-1997 to 2-6-1998, by issuing a show cause notice dated 31-7-2007. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed the penalties. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. 4. The appellant relied upon the following decisions of the High Court :- (a) CCE v. Hiren Aluminium Ltd. - 2010-TIOL-682-High Court-AHM-ST (b) CCE v. Eimco Elecon Ltd - 2010-TIOL-665-AHM-ST (c) Precot Mills Ltd v. UOI - 2011 (24) S.T.R. 283 (Ker.) (d) CCE v. Hindalco Industries Ltd - 2014 (33) S.T.R. 366 (All.). 5.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... recipient to file a return within six months from the date on which the Finance Bill, 2003 receives assent of the President. However, even after this amendment, the Apex Court has noted that in absence of Section 71A of the Finance Act, 1994 (which has retrospectively been introduced w.e.f. 16-7-1997) appearing in Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 no levy of any short duty or non-levy could have been demanded. Thus, it is apparent that till the point of time Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 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....