Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore
The Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... vs B.M.F. Beltings Ltd. on 17 September, 2007
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This is a Revenue appeal against the grant of refund of Service Tax paid by the assessee in respect of "Goods Transport Operator Service" during the period 16.11.1997 to 01.06.1998, as the demands were not maintainable for non issue of Show Cause Notice prior to the date of amendment retrospectively, covering this category. The Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed of the appeal in Order-in-Appeal No. 2/2006-ST dated 12.04.2006, which is under challenge.
2. The Revenue is contesting the Commissioner (Appeals)'s reliance on several judgments to hold that the demands were not enforceable for the reason that for the relevant period, the taxable services under "Goods Transport Operator Service" was not in existence and it was brought into force with retrospective amendment as on 12.05.2000. The Revenue has also challenged the finding that there was no issue of Show Cause Notice. Revenue has also challenged the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding that demands were barred by time. The learned JDR took me through the Grounds of Appeal and prayed for setting aside the impugned order.
3. The learned Counsel submits that identical issues have been disposed of by this Bench in asessees' favour. He files a list of citations, which are as follows:
(a) Sree Rayalaseema Dutch Kassenbouw Ltd. v. CCE, Tirupati 2007 (5) STR 233 (Tri.-Bang.)
(b) BPL Ltd. v. CST, Bangalore 2006 (2) STR 146 (Tri.-Bang.)
(c) Electronic Research Pvt. Ltd. v. CST, Bangalore 2006 (2) STR 109 (Tri.-Bang)
(d) Tumkur Dist Co-op. Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore-I 2006 (2) STR 24 (Tri.-Bang.)
(e) Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. UOI
(f) L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut-II 2006 (3) STR 230 (Tri.-Del.)
(g) CCE, Meerut-II v. L.H. Sugar factories Ltd. 2005 (187) ELT 5 (SC)
(h) Pratik Marbles (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-II 2007 (7) STR 240 (Tri.-Del.)
(i) Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, Trichy 2007 (6) STR 320 (Tri.-Chennai)
4. I have considered the citations brought to my notice by the Counsel, as noted supra, and find that in identical issues, where Show Cause Notice was issued after the amendment has not been accepted for confirmation of demand, during the relevant period, the recipient of services of Goods Transport Operators were not covered by the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the Tribunal, relying upon the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati v. UOI 2006 (2) STR 276 (SC), which affirmed the Tribunal ruling in L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. v. Commissioner 2006 (3) STR 230 (Tribunal), has held that the demands cannot be confirmed, as the Show Cause Notice for recovery was issued after the amendment to the Finance Act.
5. The Commissioner (Appeals) has gone into all aspects of the matter in great detail and has found that the Service Tax paid by them was not as per law and has accepted the claim of refund. There is no infirmity in the impugned order in the light of the aforesaid judgments. Therefore, the impugned order is affirmed by dismissing the appeal.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court)