9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1352 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - GTA service - duty paying document - denial on the ground that CENVAT credit availed on that part of the service tax paid on the GTA on the basis of TR-6 challan is not available as TR-6 challan is not the correct document to avail the CENVAT credit - reverse charge - Held that - The issue is decided by the Hon ble High Court Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa v. Essel Propack Ltd 2015 (5) TMI 529 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , where The Authorities below, as such, have rightly accepted the said Challan as proof of payment of service tax and, as such, no infirmity can be found in the orders passed by the Authorities below - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues involved: Availment of CENVAT credit of service tax paid on GTA service during a specific period based on TR-6 challans.
Analysis: Issue: Availment of CENVAT credit based on TR-6 challans for service tax paid on GTA service. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) regarding the availment of CENVAT credit on service tax paid on GTA service during a specific period. The departmental authorities contended that CENVAT credit based on TR-6 challans was not valid for availing the credit. However, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, in a similar case, held that TR-6 challans could be considered as proper documents for availing CENVAT credit during the disputed period. The Court emphasized that the absence of specific documents in the CENVAT Credit Rules for availing such credit during that period meant that TR-6 challans could be accepted as proof of payment of service tax. The Court also cited a judgment by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, emphasizing that if the duty payment is not disputed and the documents are genuine, the manufacturer is entitled to the credit. The authorities below had accepted the entitlement of the respondents to the CENVAT credit, and the TR-6 challan provided by the respondents was considered valid to support their claim. Therefore, the impugned order was deemed correct and legal, with no infirmity found. Conclusion: The appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal and disposed of the cross-objection, upholding the validity of availing CENVAT credit based on TR-6 challans for service tax paid on GTA service during the specified period.
|
