2010 (11) TMI 221 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat credit - Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Show cause notices were issued holding that the respondents could not use the cenvat credit account for paying service tax on GTA services - As both deemed service provider of services and recipient of services, dual role has been played by the respondents and therefore, the documents based on which the respondents have taken credit has been held to be valid - If the recipients are held to be service providers, then, in the present circumstances, they are providers of self service to themselves - Accordingly decided in the favour of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding availing credit on GTA services.

Analysis:
The appeal filed by the department was against the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding availing credit on GTA services. The respondents, manufacturers of excisable goods, were availing credit on inputs and input services. They were paying service tax on GTA services as recipients, deemed to be providers of such services. Show cause notices were issued, challenging the use of cenvat credit account for paying service tax on GTA services. The original authority confirmed the demand of service tax, interest, and penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original authority's orders, leading to the department's appeals.

The department argued through the Learned SDR, reiterating the findings and reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals). On the other hand, the Learned Advocate for the respondents strongly supported the Commissioner (Appeals) order, citing precedents like the case of India Cements Ltd. v. CCE, Salem and CCE, Chandigarh v. M/s. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions from both sides and perused the records. The respondents had taken credit on inputs and input services under Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It was acknowledged that the respondents were required to pay service tax on GTA services, with no fixed entity designated for paying the service tax. The Tribunal noted that the respondents, as recipients of GTA services, had a dual role as both deemed service providers and recipients. The documents supporting the credit taken by the respondents were deemed valid, as they were providers of self-service to themselves.

The Tribunal's decision was supported by the precedents cited by the Advocate for the respondents. Consequently, the appeals filed by the department were found to lack merit and were rejected. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in the open court.