2016 (12) TMI 776 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - GTA service - denial of CENVAT credit - whether Cenvat Credit of Service Tax on G.T.A., service was rightly taken on strength of TR-6 challan prior to 16.06.2005 when Rule 9 was amended and TR-6 challan was included as a specified document vide notice No.28.2005-CE? - Held that - As the issue is covered in favour of respondent-assessee in the case of CCE & S.T., Coimbatore Vs. MRF 2015 (10) TMI 1056 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where it was held that In the absence of specified documents for availing cenvat credit at the relevant time, TR-6 challan has to be considered as the proper document reflecting payment of duty - Appeal is dismissed - decided in favor of respondent-assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether Cenvat Credit of Service Tax on GTA service was correctly availed on TR-6 challan before the amendment to Rule 9 on 16.06.2005.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in the manufacturing of Paper & Paper Board, also held Service Tax Registration for services related to transport of goods by road. The dispute arose when the department challenged the appellant's availing of Cenvat Credit on service tax paid for GTA services through TR-6 challans before 16.06.2005. The department argued that the credit taken before the specified date was invalid due to an amendment in Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. A show cause notice was issued, proposing the denial of credit, tax demand, interest, and penalty.

During the proceedings, the main issue revolved around the validity of availing Cenvat Credit on GTA services using TR-6 challans before the amendment to Rule 9 on 16.06.2005. The tribunal referred to a similar case, CCE & S.T., Coimbatore Vs. MRF, where it was decided in favor of the assessee. Citing the precedent, the tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, ruling in favor of the respondent-assessee. Consequently, the respondent-assessee was granted any consequential benefits resulting from the judgment.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal, in the case under review, upheld the respondent-assessee's right to avail Cenvat Credit on GTA services using TR-6 challans before the amendment to Rule 9 on 16.06.2005, based on the precedent set in a similar case. The judgment favored the respondent-assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeal filed by the Revenue.