ASHOK LEYLAND LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in this case is regarding confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty on the services received by the appellants from goods transport operators.

(2.) NONE appeared for the appellant despite notice. There is a request for adjournment. Since the matter has been on the board from 3rd April, 2006 I take up the matter for disposal in the absence of the appellants.

(3.) HEARD learned D.R. and perused the record. The issue involved in this case is regarding demand of interest and imposition of penalty on the services received by the appellant from goods transport operators. This appeal is filed against Order -in -Appeal No. 265 -267 dated 30th August, 2005. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 30th August, 2005 had disposed of appeals filed by 3 appellants i.e. Greenply Industries Ltd., Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd. and Ashok Leyland Ltd., the current appellants. The issue is squarely covered by the final Order No. 626/06 -SM Branch dated 22.2.2006 in the case of Greenply Industries Ltd. In the said decision the Tribunal has held as under: A plain reading of Section 158 would reveal that provisions were inserted to Section 68, in order to bring the category of receiver of the services of GTO as the person liable to pay service tax. It can be seen that till this retrospective amendment the payment of service tax under Section 68 was to be made only by the service provider. After the retrospective amendment in Finance Act, 2003, the receiver of the services from G.T.O. was also made liable to pay service tax. Since the calculation of service tax liability would have been a bone of contention, the Finance Act, 2003, sought to insert a new Section 71A to make the receiver of services of G.T.O. to file returns. This insertion was necessitated as the provisions of Sections 69 & 70 of Finance Act, 1994 Applied only to service provider. By inserting Section 71A, the Finance Act, 2003 made the service receivers to file return to the authorities to ascertain the service tax liability. The said Section 71A also granted time of six months from the date of assent of the bill by the President. The Finance Bill 2003 received the assent of the President on 16.5.2003. This would imply that the service receivers, were required to file the returns by 17.11.2003 and discharge their service tax liability. It can be seen that by bringing this Section 71A in the statute, the liability to discharge the service tax was extended up to 17.11.2003. In other words, if an assessee does not pay his service tax liability by 17.11.2003, the interest liability gets fastened on to the assessee till the payment of service tax.