9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (6) TMI 415 - AT - Central ExciseCenvat credit on GTA - Service Tax paid by TR6 challan - revenue submission that TR6 is not a duty paying document - Held that - As per Para 8-9 of Cenvat credit Rules that prior to 16/03/2006, Cenvat credit can be availed on TR6 challan which indicated the discharge of Service Tax liability as held in the case of CCE vs. Essel Propack Ltd.(2007 (9) TMI 43 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) and CCE Goa vs. Crompton Greaves (2008 (1) TMI 173 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) - in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Appeal against Order-In-Appeal setting aside Order-In-Original regarding availing Cenvat credit on Service Tax paid by TR6 challan. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-In-Appeal No. 109/ANS/GGN/2009, dated 23.04.2009. Despite the respondent being informed about the hearing date, no one appeared on their behalf. The Revenue contended that the appeal was against the impugned order setting aside the Order-In-Original, which confirmed the demand raised for availing credit on Service Tax paid by TR6 challan. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the Order-In-Original, allowing Cenvat credit on TR6 challan, citing rules applicable prior to 16/03/2006. The Tribunal decisions in cases like CCE vs. Essel Propack Ltd. and CCE Goa vs. Crompton Greaves were referenced, emphasizing that Cenvat credit can be availed on TR6 challan indicating the discharge of Service Tax liability. The Tribunal's decisions were deemed binding on the Commissioner (Appeals), and no deviation from the established ratio was warranted. The presiding judge, M.V.Ravindran, found no grounds for interference in the impugned order. It was held to be legal and correct, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. The judgment highlighted the significance of prior rules allowing Cenvat credit on TR6 challan for Service Tax liability discharge, as supported by relevant Tribunal decisions. The principle of binding Tribunal decisions on lower authorities like the Commissioner (Appeals) was reiterated, emphasizing the consistency in applying established legal interpretations. The judgment concluded with the rejection of the Revenue's appeal, affirming the validity of the impugned order.
|
