9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 363 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - Refund claim - nexus between the inputs/input services and the output GTA service - Denial of refund claim - Commissioner allowed refund claim - Held that - The Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 does not distinguish between a deemed service provider and an actual service provider. Wherever service tax liability is required to be discharged, credit of tax paid on the inputs/input services can be utilised. This Tribunal in a number of cases has held that input service credit can be utilised for discharging duty liability on GTA services by the recipient of the service - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Appeal against payment of service tax on GTA services by the respondent. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), which upheld the payment of service tax on GTA services by the respondent, M/s. Indo Afrique Paper Mills (P) Ltd. The Revenue argued that the respondent, being a deemed service provider on GTA services, should discharge the liability in cash as there would be no nexus between the inputs/input services received and the output GTA service. The Revenue contended that utilizing Cenvat Credit for payment of GTA service was incorrect and not permissible in law. During the proceedings, no one appeared for the respondent, M/s. Indo Afrique Paper Mills (P) Ltd. The Ld. Additional Commissioner (AR) representing the Revenue reiterated the argument that the liability should be discharged in cash due to the lack of nexus between inputs/input services and the output GTA service. After considering the submissions made by the Revenue, the Tribunal observed that the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 do not differentiate between a deemed service provider and an actual service provider. The Tribunal referred to previous cases where it was held that input service credit could be used for discharging duty liability on GTA services by the recipient of the service. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and dismissed it accordingly.
|
