2015 (12) TMI 161 - AT - Service Tax

Disallowance of CENVAT Credit - GTA service - whether the service for which M/s Hira Industries were paid fell within the scope of GTA service even though the charges recovered pertained not only to transport of goods but also for loading and unloading - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) has taken into account the nature of service to arrive at the classification of service as GTA service. - in the given circumstances Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in holding that the said CBEC clarification was squarely applicable to the facts of the present case also and therefore the impugned service was GTA service and not cargo handling service. - No infirmity in impugned order - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against disallowance of Cenvat credit for service tax paid under GTA service.

Analysis:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the disallowance of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 80,618/- by the primary adjudicating authority based on the nature of the service provided by M/s Hira Industries. The authority held that the appellant incorrectly claimed Cenvat credit for service tax paid as a service recipient under GTA service, while the service actually fell under cargo handling service. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) referenced a CBEC circular to support the disallowance of the credit, stating that the service should be treated as GTA service due to the nature of the charges mentioned in the invoices.

The Revenue contended that the CBEC circular cited by the Commissioner (Appeals) was specifically aimed at Goods Transport Agencies issuing consignment notes, which was not the case with M/s Hira Industries. However, the respondent argued in cross-objections that the service provided was indeed GTA service, emphasizing its essential character despite including loading and unloading services.

Upon considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal focused on determining whether the service provided by M/s Hira Industries should be classified as GTA service or cargo handling service. By referencing the CBEC circular which clarified the distinction between the two services, the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the service fell under GTA service, as the charges included not only transportation but also loading and unloading. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds for appellate intervention based on the analysis of the service nature and the applicable CBEC clarification.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment centered on the correct classification of the service provided by M/s Hira Industries, ultimately affirming that it should be treated as GTA service rather than cargo handling service, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against the disallowance of Cenvat credit.