2015 (11) TMI 49 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - GTA Service - inward transportation of the vehicle from M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd - Held That - Appellant is entitle for credit in respect of GTA as input service thus demand of ₹ 11,68,494/- is set aside. - Decision made in case of Commissioner v. Shariff Motors 2009 (3) TMI 155 - CESTAT, Bangalore followed. Credit of ₹ 2,08,665/- availed on building material is not admissible - Penalty of equal amount imposed and upheld by lower authority is maintainable - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on GTA service for transportation of new vehicles.
2. Denial of Cenvat credit on construction materials.
3. Imposition of penalties under Cenvat Credit Rules.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of Cenvat credit on GTA service for transportation of new vehicles
The appellant availed Cenvat credit on inward transportation of new vehicles from M/s. Maruti Suzuki to the appellant. The Revenue contended that this GTA service is not an input service for the authorized station service provided by the appellant. However, the Tribunal, in the case of Shariff Motors, held that such transportation services are indeed input services as they are directly related to the output service of servicing vehicles. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that unless vehicles are received and sold, there would be no servicing. The Tribunal in the present case allowed the Cenvat credit on GTA services, following the precedent set by the Shariff Motors case. The judgment in Sree Siva Sankar Automobiles was distinguished as it was not upheld by the High Court. Therefore, the demand for Cenvat credit of &8377; 11,68,494/- was set aside.

Issue 2: Denial of Cenvat credit on construction materials
The appellant also availed Cenvat credit on construction materials, which the Revenue argued were not admissible as inputs or capital goods for the output service. The appellant did not contest the service tax liability on these materials and had paid the amount along with interest. As a result, the demand for Cenvat credit of &8377; 2,08,665/- on building materials was maintained by the Tribunal.

Issue 3: Imposition of penalties under Cenvat Credit Rules
The lower authority had imposed penalties on the appellant for availing inadmissible input service credit and for misrepresenting facts in the ST-3 returns. The Tribunal found no default in the payment of service tax by the appellant. Therefore, the penalty equal to the amount imposed by the lower authority was upheld for the appellant's failure to pay the demanded amount related to the construction materials.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by setting aside the demand for Cenvat credit on GTA services but maintained the demand for Cenvat credit on construction materials and upheld the penalty imposed by the lower authority.