Tube Investments of India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT Chennai)
Second Show Cause Notice Valid as Service Tax Demand Was Within Limitation; No Interest on GTO Service Tax When Return Filed Before Deadline; Retrospective Amendments Upheld: CESTAT Confirms Service Tax on Goods Transport Service Recipients; CESTAT Rejects Limitation Challenge Against GTO Service Tax Demand Due to Amended Section 73.
In Tube Investments of India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, the Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) partly allowed the appeal by holding that service tax on Goods Transport Operator (GTO) services for the period from 16-11-1997 to 01-06-1998 was payable by the appellant, but interest was not leviable because the return had been filed within the prescribed period.
The appellant, a manufacturer of steel tubes, had availed services of Goods Transport Operators during the relevant period. Following amendments introduced through the Finance Act, 2000, a show cause notice dated 11-04-2002 was issued demanding service tax along with interest and penalties. The appellant contested the demand on grounds including limitation and absence of statutory liability during the relevant period. Subsequently, after the Finance Act, 2003 introduced Section 71A and related provisions, the appellant filed Form ST-3B on 12-11-2003 and paid service tax of Rs. 2,34,325 under protest. Later, a refund claim was filed contending that the payment was made under mistake of law and relying upon judicial precedents.
