9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 920 - HC - Service TaxCENVAT credit - GTA service - input service or not? - interpretation of statute - Board Circular No. 345/4/2005-TRU dated 3-10-2005 - Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the respondents did not provide any taxable service though they did manufacture an excisable product? - Held that - this court in the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s. Cheran Spinners Limited 2013 (8) TMI 215 - MADRAS HIGH COURT has held that the recipient of GTA services by virtue of the Explanation to Rule 2(p) of the CENVAT Credit Rules as a provider of output service was entitled to all benefits that a person providing input service would be entitled to in the matter of CENVAT credit adjustment and the appeal of Revenue was rejected - following the same in the present case the apppeal is dismissed - decided in favor of assessee.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Board Circular No. 345/4/2005-TRU by the Tribunal. 2. Taxability of service provided by respondents manufacturing excisable products. Issue 1: Interpretation of Board Circular No. 345/4/2005-TRU by the Tribunal The High Court considered whether the Tribunal was correct in disregarding Board Circular No. 345/4/2005-TRU while deciding the appeal. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in not following the Circular, arguing that the interpretation of the Central Board of Excise and Customs should be binding upon the Revenue. The Court noted precedents where it was held that such interpretations are binding. However, in this case, the Court did not delve into the specifics of the Circular's content or applicability. The issue was not extensively discussed, and the Court's decision was primarily based on another ground. Issue 2: Taxability of service provided by respondents manufacturing excisable products The Court examined whether the respondents, despite manufacturing excisable products, provided a taxable service. The Court analyzed the nature of the service provided and its classification under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The respondents received GTA service, which, without a specific explanation, would have been considered an "input service" under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. However, due to the explanation provided, it was deemed to be an "output service." The Court referenced relevant rules to support its interpretation. Additionally, the Court cited a previous case where a similar issue was addressed, resulting in the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. Based on this precedent, the Court dismissed the current appeal filed by the Revenue, aligning with the decision in the prior case. In conclusion, the High Court's judgment primarily focused on the taxability of the service provided by the respondents and the application of relevant rules in determining the nature of the service. The decision to dismiss the appeal was influenced by a previous case with similar circumstances. The judgment did not extensively address the interpretation of the Board Circular, as the dismissal was primarily based on the outcome of the previous case.
|
