P.G. Chacko, Member (J) - (1.)THE challenge in this appeal is against a demand of Service tax on 'Goods Transport' service received by the appellants during the period 16.11.1997 to 1.6.1998. This tax was demanded in a show -cause notice issued by the Department on 20.12.2001. The original authority confirmed this demand and the first appellate authority sustained the same.
(2.)AFTER examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that the issue stands squarely covered in favour of the appellants by a line of decisions of this Bench, one of which cited by the Chartered Accountant is Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai v. EID Parry Confectionery Ltd. . The ratio of the cited decision is contained in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order, which is extracted below:
5. I have carefully considered the submissions. The assessees in both the appeals are recipients of taxable services, namely, 'Clearing and Forwarding ' service, 'Goods Transport' service. In respect of both these services, rules had been framed by Central Government to recover Service tax from the recipients of service. But these rules were held to be ultra vires Sections 65 and 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati (supra). In order to get over the Supreme Court's ruling, Parliament amended Section 65 ibid in relation to the limited period 16.7.1997 to 16.10.1998 under Section 116 of the Finance Act, 2000, whereby recipients of 'Goods Transport' service and 'Clearing and Forwarding' service were defined as "assessees". Further, for the aforesaid limited period, Parliament declared that "any action taken or anything done or purported to have been (I) taken or done at any time during the period commencing on and from the 16th day of July, 1997 and ending with the day, the Finance Act, 2000 receives the assent of the President shall be deemed to be valid and always to have been valid for all purposes, as validly and effectively taken or done" vide Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2000. Later on, the Finance Act, 2003, made certain amendments to the Service tax provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, whereby the aforesaid assessees were required to present Tax returns to the proper officer within six months from 14.5.2003 (date on which the Finance Act, 2003 received Presidential assent). Ld. Counsel has also invited any attention to the legal opinion given by the Additional Legal Advisor to Government of India. This opinion is to the effect that Service tax could not be recovered from the aforementioned service -receivers for the period covered by the amendment where no action was initiated against them for such recovery during such period.

6. In the instant case, the demands of Service tax were raised beyond 12.5.2000 m show cause notices dated 13.5.2002 and 14.2.2003. Such demands are not affected by the amendments made to Section 65 by Parliament under Section 116 of the Finance Act. 2000 and consequently they are hit by the Apex Court's ruling in Laghu Udyog Bharati (supra)

Following the above view, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)