Case Law Details

Case Name : PSL Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Appeal Number : [2014 (11) TMI 84 - CESTAT Ahmedabad]
Date of Judgement/Order :
Related Assessment Year :

When at the time of retrospective amendment, no proceedings were pending, Show Cause Notice issued for recovery of Service tax after retrospective amendment is not sustainable

PSL Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Daman [2014 (11) TMI 84 – CESTAT Ahmedabad]

In the instant case, demand of Service tax is raised against PSL Ltd. (the Appellant) as recipient of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services for the period from November 16, 1997 to June 2, 1998, by issuing a Show Cause Notice dated July 31, 2007 i.e. after retrospective amendment in the relevant provisions. Later, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand against the Appellant along with imposition of penalties.

The Appellant relying upon the following decisions of the Hon’ble High Court:

  • CCE Vs. Hiren Aluminium Ltd. [2010-TIOL-682-High Court-AHM-ST]
  • CCE Vs. Eimco Elecon Ltd. [2010-TIOL-665-AHM-ST]
  • Precot Mills Ltd.Vs. UOI [2011 (24) S.T.R. 283 (Ker.)]
  • CCE Vs. Hindalco Industries Ltd. [2014 (33) S.T.R. 366 (All.)]

Filed an appeal before the Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad and contended that if a Show Cause Notice is issued for recovery of Service tax after the retrospective amendment, the same is not sustainable.

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad also relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court in the stated cases and held that when at the time of retrospective amendment, no proceedings were pending against the Appellant in respect of Service tax, demand of Service tax along with Penalty raised by issuing a Show Cause Notice after the retrospective amendment is not sustainable.

(Bimal Jain, FCA, FCS, LLB, B.Com (Hons), Mobile: +91 9810604563, Email: bimaljain@hotmail.com)

Read Other Articles from CA Bimal Jain

More Under Service Tax

Posted Under

Category : Service Tax (3288)
Type : Articles (14831)
Tags : CA Bimal Jain (661) Cestat judgments (797)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *