2014 (11) TMI 931 - HC - Service Tax

Service Tax on GTA under reverse charge - Cenvat credit - payment of service tax through cenvat credit - assessee was engaged in manufacture of yarn of different kinds - Held that - in respect of nature of manufacturing done by the respondent, imposition of Service Tax does not arise and respondent is entitled to use Cenvat credit. - Following decision of The Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s. Cheran Spinners Limited 2013 (8) TMI 215 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against Final Orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
2. Liability of manufacturers of cotton yarn to pay Service Tax
3. Interpretation of the term "Output Service" under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
4. Applicability of Cenvat credit in relation to Service Tax liability

Analysis:

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals were filed against Final Orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai. The respondents, manufacturers of cotton yarn, were directed to pay Service Tax by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Dindigul. The demand was upheld by the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) except for the penalty. The Tribunal concluded that the respondents, engaged in manufacturing cotton yarn, were not liable to pay Service Tax and were entitled to use Cenvat credit.

2. The key issue revolved around the liability of manufacturers of cotton yarn to pay Service Tax. The Tribunal found that since the respondents were involved in manufacturing and procuring raw materials for the same, they were not obligated to pay Service Tax. This decision was challenged by the department through the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals.

3. The Appeals raised questions regarding the interpretation of the term "Output Service" as defined in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal's decision to consider the respondents as not providing any taxable service but manufacturing final products, thereby deeming them as "Output Service" providers, was a crucial aspect of the case.

4. The applicability of Cenvat credit in relation to the Service Tax liability was a significant point of contention. The Tribunal allowed the respondents to utilize Cenvat credit to discharge their Service Tax liability, emphasizing the benefits available to a person providing input service. The Division Bench's decision in a similar case supported this interpretation, stating that in cases where the nature of manufacturing does not necessitate Service Tax imposition, Cenvat credit can be used.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, upholding the Tribunal's decision that the respondents were not liable to pay Service Tax and were entitled to use Cenvat credit. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting the Cenvat Credit Rules and ensuring that manufacturers engaging in specific activities are not unduly burdened with Service Tax obligations.