2011 (2) TMI 728 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat credit - whether the respondents are liable to pay service tax on GTA only by cash or from PLA and not from Cenvat Credit Account for the period from January, 2005 to March, 2006 - Tribunal has found that prior to Notification No.10/2008-CE (NT) dated 1.3.2008, a person who is liable to pay service tax on goods transport agent service in terms of section 68 (2) of the Finance Act 1994 and is not actual service provider, can utilize credit for payment of tax on such services - Hence, find that issue is no more resintegra and admittedly the period involved in this case is prior to 1.3.2008 - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the respondents are liable to pay service tax on GTA only by cash or from PLA and not from Cenvat Credit Account for the period from January, 2005 to March, 2006.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the dropping of proceedings against the respondent concerning the liability to pay service tax on goods transport agent (GTA) services. The main issue revolved around whether the respondents could pay the service tax on GTA only by cash or from the Personal Ledger Account (PLA) and not from the Cenvat Credit Account during the period from January 2005 to March 2006.

The Revenue's representative reiterated the grounds of appeal and supported the adjudication order, while the respondent's advocate argued that the issue was settled law based on previous decisions. The advocate referred to specific cases such as CCE, Bangalore vs. M/s. Shri Tubes & Steels Pvt. Ltd., CCE, Chandigarh vs. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. & Ors., and CST, Mumbai vs. Phills Engineering Corporation to support the contention.

After hearing both parties and considering the arguments presented, the Tribunal examined the cited decisions and concluded that before Notification No. 10/2008-CE (NT) dated 1.3.2008, a person liable to pay service tax on GTA services as per Section 68(2) of the Finance Act 1994, who is not the actual service provider, could utilize credit for tax payment on such services. The Tribunal found that the issue was no longer open to debate (res-integra) based on the mentioned decisions, and since the period in question in this case was before 1.3.2008, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, stating that there was no merit in it.

In the final pronouncement, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the issue had been settled by previous decisions and the period involved fell before the relevant notification.