COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. TURBO ENERGY LTD.,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals involve a common issue and hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondents had engaged the services of transport operators. Notices were issued to them by the Central Excise authorities proposing imposition of penalty for contravention of the provisions of Sec. 76 & 81 of the Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 and as to why interest should not be recovered for delayed payment of service tax. The notices were adjudicated by confirming the demand of service tax payable for services used in the case of goods transport operators, together with interest and imposition of penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order by a common Order -in -Appeal; hence these appeals by the Revenue.

(3.) On hearing both sides, we find that the issue in dispute stands settled by the apex court's decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara v/s. Gujarat Carbon & Industries Ltd., 2008 (12) S.T.R. 3 (SC) holding that in the case of recipient of goods transport operator services, liability to file return was cast on assessees only under Sec. 71A of the Finance Act, 1994 which was introduced in the Finance Bill, 2003 and liability under Sec. 73 during the relevant period covered cases of assessees liable to file returns under Sec. 70 and in respect of persons coming under Sec. 71A they are not brought under the net of Sec. 73, and therefore, show -cause notices issued to assessees invoking Sec. 73 were not maintainable. In the present case also, the SCNs have been issued invoking Sec. 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the ratio of the apex court's decision cited supra, is applicable on all fours to the facts of the present case and respectfully following the same we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeals.