- (1.) Delay condoned. Appeal Admitted.
(2.) In these appeals common points are involved and therefore they are disposed of by this common judgment.
(3.) Challenge in each case is to the judgment of various Benches of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'CESTAT'). The respondents in each case had engaged the services of transport operators. They were in other words availers of service and not service providers. The Central Excise Authorities issued notice asking them to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed upon them under the provisions of Sections 76 and 77 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 for alleged contravention of the provisions of Sections 70, 76 and 81 of the said Chapter and as to why interest should not be recovered from them for delayed payment of service tax as provided under the aforesaid Act. Relying on a decision of this Court in Laghu Udyog Bharti & Ors. v. Union of India (1999 (112) ELT 365) the show cause notice was dropped. In the said case, it was held that service availers are not required to pay service tax under the provisions of the Finance Act. In some cases the orders were reviewed under Section 84 of the said Act on the ground that Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2000 validates retrospectively the provisions of sub-clause (xii) of clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Service Tax Rules, 1994. As a sample case, we refer to the factual scenario of Civil Appeal No.1618 of 2005. The factual scenario is that Commissioner was of the view that according to Section 117 of the Finance Act, 2000 notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority , sub-clause (xii) and sub-clause (xvii) of clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Service Tax (Amendment) Rules, 1998 shall be deemed to be valid as if the said clause had been in force at all material times. In view of the aforesaid retrospective amendment, the order of the Deputy Commissioner was reviewed. A show cause notice was issued seeking to review the order. After considering the reply of the respondent-assessee the Commissioner demanded service tax on the gross amount of transport charges paid by it to the goods transport operators excluding insurance charges during the period 16.11.1997 to 1.6.1998 alongwith interest for delayed payment of service tax required to be paid under the Finance Act, 1994.;