9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (4) TMI 798 - AT - Central ExciseCenvat credit - GTA service - original authority denied the credit holding that TR-6 challan under which the duty was paid is not prescribed document for the purpose of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 prior to 16.6.2005 - Held that - As per case of CCE, Goa vs. Crompton Greaves Ltd. 2008 (1) TMI 173 - CESTAT, MUMBAI held that even for the period prior to 16.6.2006, the document TR-6 challan under which the recipient paid service tax can be used as document for the purpose of taking credit - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Department's appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order disallowing credit under Cenvat Credit Rules. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi was brought by the department challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 11.5.2009. The respondent, a biscuit manufacturer and recipient of GTA service, had paid service tax under TR-6 challan and claimed credit under Cenvat Credit Rules. The original authority denied the credit, stating that the TR-6 challan was not a prescribed document for Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules before 16.6.2005. Consequently, a penalty was imposed. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision based on the Tribunal's ruling in a similar case. The department reiterated their grounds of appeal, while the respondent relied on a different Tribunal decision supporting their position. Upon hearing both sides and reviewing the facts, the Tribunal noted that the respondent had paid service tax as both the payer and recipient of the service. Referring to the Tribunal's previous ruling, it was established that even before 16.6.2006, the TR-6 challan could be used as a valid document for claiming credit. The Tribunal also highlighted that there was no indication of the decision being stayed or reversed by the High Court, and another Tribunal decision further supported the respondent's case. Consequently, the Tribunal found no valid grounds to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) order and dismissed the department's appeal, along with disposing of the cross objection in favor of the respondent. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing the admissibility of the TR-6 challan for claiming credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, even for the period prior to 16.6.2005. The decision was based on established precedents and lack of compelling grounds to overturn the lower authority's ruling.
|
