Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Geedee Weiler Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce

Geedee Weiler Pvt. Ltd. vs Cce

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu Decided Jul 27, 2007
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/45918

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Geedee Weiler Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Cce

Excerpt

1. the appellants had paid service tax of rs. 13,899/- on 31.1.2003 for the goods transport operator's (gto) service availed by them during the period from 16.11.1997 to 2.6.1998. the commissioner demanded interest on the above amount under section 75 of the finance act, 1994 and also imposed a penalty on the appellants under section 76 of the act.2. after examining the records and hearing both sides, i find that the party was not liable to pay tax in view of the decision of the tribunal in l.h. sugar factories ltd. v. cce, meerut affirmed by the supreme court in 2005 (187) elt 5 (sc). where tax was not payable, no interest on tax was demandable as held by this bench in final order no. 1549/2005 [2006-tiol-138-cestat-mad.]. further, recipients of gto service, like the appellants, were exempt from penal liability by parliament through retrospective amendment of the finance act, 1994 vide section 117 of the finance act, 2000.3. it appears from the records that the service tax returns were filed by the appellants on 26.8.2003, within the prescribed period. their payment of service tax was also within the period stipulated by the hon'ble supreme court in the case of gujarat ambuja cements ltd. v.union of india 2005 (182) elt 33 (sc). in the said case, their lordships had also made it clear that the assessees paying tax within the time granted by the court would not be liable to pay interest or penalty. this benefit is certainly available to the appellants.in the result, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed.(operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 27.7.2007)

Full Judgment

1. The appellants had paid service tax of Rs. 13,899/- on 31.1.2003 for the Goods Transport Operator's (GTO) service availed by them during the period from 16.11.1997 to 2.6.1998. The Commissioner demanded interest on the above amount under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and also imposed a penalty on the appellants under Section 76 of the Act.

2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that the party was not liable to pay tax in view of the decision of the Tribunal in L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2005 (187) ELT 5 (SC). Where tax was not payable, no interest on tax was demandable as held by this bench in Final Order No. 1549/2005 [2006-TIOL-138-CESTAT-MAD.]. Further, recipients of GTO service, like the appellants, were exempt from penal liability by Parliament through retrospective amendment of the Finance Act, 1994 vide Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2000.

3. It appears from the records that the service tax returns were filed by the appellants on 26.8.2003, within the prescribed period. Their payment of service tax was also within the period stipulated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v.Union of India 2005 (182) ELT 33 (SC). In the said case, their Lordships had also made it clear that the assessees paying tax within the time granted by the court would not be liable to pay interest or penalty. This benefit is certainly available to the appellants.

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed.

(Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 27.7.2007)

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial