Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
Sree Rayalaseema Dutch Kassenbouw Ltd. vs Cce on 17 April, 2006
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. The stay application and the appeal are taken up together for the disposal as the issue is covered by the Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. M/s. Gemini Steel Tubes Ltd. and Anr. by Final Order Nos. 1900 & 1901/2005 dated 14-11-2005. The appellant was carrying out the services of goods transport operators. The said services were not covered for the period from 16-7-1997 to 16-10-1998. They were not issued with show cause notice for this period before the amendment of Finance Act to cover these services retrospectively. Therefore on this ground, the learned Counsel submits that the demands are not sustainable and refers to the Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. v. CCE wherein it has been held that if where show cause notice has not been issued prior to the amendment of the Finance Act, then in such circumstance, the demands are unsustainable. The Tribunal has followed the Apex Court judgment in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati v. Union of India . In view of these judgments, the learned Counsel submits that the demands are not sustainable and therefore, the appeal is required to be allowed at this stage only.
2. Heard the learned SDR who fairly concedes that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee.
3. On a careful consideration of the matter, we notice that the recipients of services of the goods transport operators were not covered by Finance Act for the period in question. After the amendment of the Finance Act, bringing in such services with the net of Service Tax retrospectively, the demands have been raised. In view of the cited judgments, the demands are not sustainable as it has been held that the show cause notice should have been issued prior to the amendment by the Finance Act. As the same has not been done, the plea of the learned Counsel for setting aside the demands is justified. The above cited rulings clearly apply to the facts of the case. Therefore the stay application and the appeal are allowed with consequential relief in the light of the judgments noted supra.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)