2012 (11) TMI 43 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on GTA service, tyre retreading service and shifting of household articles of employees Held that - As regards benefit of service tax paid for shifting of household goods of employees, issue is covered against assessee by the decision of this Tribunal and accordingly the demand for service tax is upheld - As regards tyre retreading service, it is part of vehicle maintenance and therefore the benefit of service tax credit has to be allowed - whether service tax credit is available in respect of vehicle maintenance has been decided by the Tribunal in their own case that vehicle maintenance is an input service

Summary

Issues:
Eligibility of CENVAT credit for service tax paid on GTA service, tyre retreading service, and shifting of household articles of employees.

Analysis:
The issue before the Appellate Tribunal was the eligibility of CENVAT credit for service tax paid on GTA service, tyre retreading service, and shifting of household articles of employees. The Revenue appealed against a decision allowing the credit for GTA services, while the assessee appealed against the disallowance of credit for service tax paid on transportation of household articles of employees and tyre retreading.

The learned counsel for the assessee referred to a previous decision by the Tribunal in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P.) Ltd. v. CCE&ST, where it was held that CENVAT credit for service tax paid for shifting household goods of employees is not admissible. The counsel did not contest this issue. However, regarding tyre retreading service, it was argued that vehicle maintenance is an 'input service,' and therefore, the credit for service tax paid on tyre retreading should be allowed as it is part of vehicle maintenance.

On the other hand, the Revenue's representative cited a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CCE & ST v. ABB Ltd., and did not contest the credit taken before 01.04.2008. Regarding tyre retreading, it was argued that it cannot be considered as maintenance of vehicles since it is not done by an authorized service station.

The Tribunal considered both arguments and held that the benefit of credit for GTA service was settled by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of ABB Ltd., thus rejecting the Revenue's appeal. As for the service tax paid for shifting household goods of employees, the Tribunal upheld the demand since it was covered against the assessee in a previous decision. However, regarding tyre retreading service, the Tribunal considered it as part of vehicle maintenance and allowed the benefit of service tax credit, as previously decided in the Tribunal's own case.

In conclusion, the demand for service tax on shifting household goods of employees was upheld against the appellants, who were held liable to pay the service tax credit availed on this service with interest. The penalty was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), and since there was no challenge to this decision in the Revenue's appeal, the question of penalty did not arise. Both appeals were declared accordingly.