9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 330 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT credit of the service tax paid on GTA service - denial of Credit as GTA service was not an output service for the appellant - demand of service tax and education cesses - April 2007 to March 2008 - Held that - As decided in Commissioner vs. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. 2010 (5) TMI 608 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT in view of paragraph 2.4.2 of CBEC Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions one who was engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods and used to avail GTA service in connection with such manufacture as also to pay service tax on such service in the reverse charge mechanism, was deemed to be the provider of output service (GTA service) and, accordingly, held to be entitled to utilise CENVAT credit on inputs/input services/capital goods towards payment of service tax on the GTA service - in favour of assessee.
Issues: Appeal against demand of service tax and education cesses, challenge against penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Analysis: 1. Demand of Service Tax and Education Cesses: - The appellant was engaged in manufacturing electrical goods and used GTA service for transportation of raw materials and finished products. - CENVAT credit on input services was utilized for payment of service tax on GTA service. - The department objected, issuing a show-cause notice demanding service tax and education cesses. - The original authority confirmed the demand, imposing a penalty under Section 78, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). - The appellant contested the demand, relying on legal precedents supporting CENVAT credit utilization for service tax payment on GTA service. 2. Applicability of CENVAT Credit Rules: - The appellant was liable to pay service tax on GTA service under Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. - Output service definition under Rule 2(p) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was analyzed, concluding that the appellant was not engaged in providing output services. - Denial of CENVAT credit on input services led to the demand of service tax on GTA service. 3. Penalty Imposition under Section 78: - The show-cause notice invoked Section 78 without attributing mens rea to the appellant. - The appellant contested the penalty, arguing that ingredients for penalty were not alleged in the notice. 4. Judicial Precedents and Legal Interpretation: - Reference was made to Commissioner vs. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd., supporting the appellant's position on CENVAT credit utilization. - The High Court's judgment on a similar issue favored the appellant's entitlement to CENVAT credit for GTA service tax payment. - The decision emphasized following the High Court's view in the absence of contrary judicial precedent. 5. Decision and Outcome: - The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to CENVAT credit on input services for service tax payment on GTA service. - Consequently, the demands were set aside, and the appeal was allowed. - The judgment highlighted the importance of legal interpretations and judicial precedents in resolving tax disputes effectively.
|
