2011 (7) TMI 714 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit - GTA services - rule 2(l) of CENVAT credit Rules 2004 - Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Bangalore (2009 -TMI - 34139 - CESTAT BANGALORE) has held that the services availed by a manufacturer for outward transportation of final products from the place of removal shall be treated as input services in terms of Rule 2(l)(ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - Appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of CENVAT credit on GTA services
- Interpretation of Rule 2(l)(ii) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
- Applicability of precedents in similar cases

Analysis:

The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the lower adjudicating authority's decision disallowing CENVAT credit on GTA services. The respondent, engaged in manufacturing goods falling under Chapter 83 of CETA 1985, had availed CENVAT credit on input and input services during specific periods. The disallowance was based on the ground that the service tax on GTA services did not fall under the definition of input service as per Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

The JDR representing the Revenue reiterated the lower authority's findings and highlighted that the inclusion of service tax CENVAT credit on GTA services in the assessable value had not been adequately proven by the respondent. However, when asked for evidence regarding this aspect in the show-cause notice, the JDR could not provide any proof.

In response, the respondent cited a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in a similar case involving CENVAT credit on service tax on GTA services. The JDR did not contest this argument. The Tribunal referred to a previous ruling in the case of ABB Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, which held that services for outward transportation of final products could be considered as input services under Rule 2(l)(ii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

The Tribunal further pointed out that the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court supported the allowance of CENVAT credit on service tax on GTA services for the period before the rule amendment on 01.04.2008. As the present case fell within this period, the Tribunal found the decision applicable.

Regarding the JDR's contention that the respondent had not shown the inclusion of service tax in the assessable value, the Tribunal noted the lack of evidence to support this claim. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, as there was no reason to interfere based on the presented facts and legal precedents.