2010 (8) TMI 410 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat credit of service tax Document for availing credit - absence of any other evidence prescribed by law to claim taxes paid in respect of GTA services other than through TR 6 challans the claim of the appellant shall not be denied - the basic rule of cenvat credit is to avoid cascading effect, procedure should not be bottleneck to deny substantial right of the appellant - Right to cenvat credit in the present case not disputed.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of credit of taxes paid for goods transport agency service
- Validity of using TR 6 challans as proof for cenvat credit
- Interpretation of procedural rules in tax credit claims

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought credit for taxes paid on goods transport agency (GTA) services. The appellant argued that since the rules did not specify that the challan showing service tax payment on GTA services could not be used as proof for cenvat credit, they should not be denied the credit.

2. The Department did not contest that the service tax on GTA services was paid by the appellant. Both parties relied on TR 6 challans for their claims. The Department's stance was that without a rule explicitly allowing TR 6 challans as a basis for granting credit, the denial of cenvat credit by the lower Appellate Authority was appropriate.

3. After hearing both sides and examining the records, it was noted that TR 6 challan was the prescribed basis for allowing cenvat credit from a certain date onwards, which was after the relevant period in this case. Since no other evidence was prescribed by law for claiming taxes paid on GTA services apart from TR 6 challans, the appellant's claim could not be dismissed solely on this basis.

4. Emphasizing the objective of cenvat credit to prevent cascading effects, the Tribunal highlighted that the lack of an alternative prescribed evidence should not impede the appellant's legitimate right to credit. While the right to cenvat credit was not in dispute, procedural hurdles should not obstruct its realization.

5. Referring to legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's stance on procedural rules, the Tribunal emphasized that procedure should serve justice and not act as a barrier. The interpretation of rules should not be overly technical to the extent of frustrating justice. In this context, it was deemed necessary to ensure that procedure did not hinder the appellant's rightful claim.

6. In the interest of justice and to uphold the appellant's undisputed right to credit, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the credit claimed through the TR-6 challan submitted before the lower authorities. The impugned order denying the credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of denial of tax credit, the use of TR 6 challans for cenvat credit, and the interpretation of procedural rules in tax credit claims, providing a comprehensive overview of the Tribunal's decision and the legal principles applied.