2011 (6) TMI 561 - HC - Service Tax

Whether Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in holding that recommending committee on whose recommendation the appeal has been filed by the revenue is not properly notified in the Official Gazette and therefore the appeal of the revenue is not maintainable Held that - eligibility of the manufacturer to avail Cenvat Credit on service tax paid on goods transport service for clearance of goods beyond the place of removal. This question has been answered by this Court in Tax Appeal No. 419 of 2010 and connected appeals decided on 6-4-2011 2011 (6) TMI 561 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT and the issue stands concluded against the Revenue. In that view of the matter it is not necessary to entertain this appeal though the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on some other grounds. Tax Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Proper constitution of the recommending committee for filing appeals by revenue.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 2/2010-C.E. (N.T.) regarding maintainability of appeals.
3. Consideration of application for condonation of delay before dismissing appeal on technical grounds.
4. Eligibility of manufacturer to avail Cenvat Credit on service tax paid on goods transport service.

Analysis:

1. The High Court addressed the issue of the constitution of the recommending committee for filing appeals by revenue. The Tribunal had rejected the appeal of the Revenue on the grounds that the committee of Commissioners was not properly constituted. The Court noted that while this could have been a valid reason to consider the appeal further, the main issue at hand was the eligibility of the manufacturer to avail Cenvat Credit on service tax paid on goods transport service. The Court referred to a previous judgment where this issue was conclusively decided against the Revenue. Therefore, the Court found it unnecessary to delve into the committee's constitution issue and dismissed the appeal.

2. The Court also considered the interpretation of Notification No. 2/2010-C.E. (N.T.) in relation to the maintainability of appeals. The Tribunal had raised questions regarding the interpretation of the notification and its impact on the appeal filed by the revenue. However, the Court's decision to dismiss the appeal was primarily based on the substantive issue of Cenvat Credit eligibility rather than the technicalities surrounding the notification. By referencing a previous judgment on a similar matter, the Court clarified that the issue had already been conclusively settled against the Revenue.

3. Another issue addressed by the Court was the consideration of an application for condonation of delay before dismissing the appeal on technical grounds. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal without deciding on the condonation of delay application. However, the Court found that given the substantive issue of Cenvat Credit eligibility had already been conclusively decided against the Revenue in a previous judgment, the technical grounds for dismissal were not crucial. Therefore, the Court upheld the dismissal of the appeal without the need to address the condonation of delay application separately.

4. Lastly, the Court examined the issue of the eligibility of the manufacturer to avail Cenvat Credit on service tax paid on goods transport service. This question was the crux of the appeal, and the Court referred to a previous judgment where it was conclusively decided against the Revenue. Since the issue had already been settled in a prior judgment, the Court found it unnecessary to entertain the current appeal, despite the Tribunal dismissing it on different grounds. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Tax Appeal based on the conclusive decision regarding the eligibility of the manufacturer to avail Cenvat Credit.