Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Chetan Foundries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 13 July, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(177)ELT617(TRI-DEL), 2006[3]S.T.R.318, [2007]7STT331
ORDER P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the service tax liability of the appellants for the period 16-11-1997 to 1-6-1998 as recipient of the service provided to them by the transport company. Both the authorities below have confirmed the service tax amounting to Rs. 2,95,493/- for the above said period, on the appellants, by taking the view that they stand covered for tax liability under Sections 70 and 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 as amended by the Finance Act, 2003.
2. The learned Counsel has contended that the case of the appellants squarely stands covered by the Division Bench judgment of the Tribunal in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut-II wherein it has been ruled that the person receiving taxable service, from goods transport operators, did not stand covered by the provisions of Sections 70 and 73 of the Finance Act as these were before the amendment and that after the amendment, such a person is liable to file returns only under Section 71A of the Act. This judgment, according to the Counsel has been again followed by the Division Bench in the case of Shree Shankar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. CCE, Pune-III decided by ST Final Order No. 13/2004-NB(A), dated 18-5-2004.
3. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.
4. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record.
5. Admittedly, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods. They are said to have availed the service of the goods transport operators during the period in dispute, for transportation of the goods. Therefore, their case is squarely covered by the above referred judgments of the Division Bench of the Tribunal. They thus do not stand covered by the provisions of Sections 70 and 73 of the Finance Act, for the purpose of service tax liability. Therefore, no show cause notice requiring them to pay service tax under the said provisions could legally be issued by the authorities. That being so, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the service tax on them by affirming the order of the Adjudicating Authority, in that regard, cannot be sustained and is set aside.
6. The appeal of the appellants stands accordingly allowed with consequential relief, if any, permissible under the law.