9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1361 - HC - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - input services - Goods Transport Agency service - time limitation - reverse charge mechanism - merger of service tax and Cenvat credit as on 30/12/2004 - HELD THAT - Tribunal, relied on decisions of Delhi High Court in the cases of CST Vs. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. 2012 (12) TMI 734 - DELHI HIGH COURT and CC Vs. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. 2010 (5) TMI 608 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT to allow the claim. In both the above cases, the court after placing reliance upon Rule 3(4)(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 held that the Cenvat credit available could be utilised by the respondent to discharge its obligation of payment of service tax on GTA service on reverse charge mechanism. No distinguishing features in fact or in law are brought to our notice which would justify our taking a different view. The question of law as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Extended period of limitation - demand of the revenue is time barred - HELD THAT - On introduction of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the respondent by its letter dtd.19/01/2005 brought to the notice of the authorities that in view of the new Rules, it is permitted to utilise the service tax credit for payment of excise duty on manufactured goods and vice-versa. Tribunal found that the Revenue was aware that the respondent was taking the merged credit in 2004, in view of intimation dtd.19/01/2005. Thus, the Tribunal held that the show-cause notice is time barred and allowed the respondent's appeal before it. This decision of the Tribunal is one on facts and nothing has been shown to us to indicate that the same is perverse. - substantial question of law. - appeal dismissed.
Issues:
1. Whether Cenvat credit can be used for discharging service tax liability on Goods Transport Agency services. 2. Whether the demand of the revenue is time-barred. Analysis: Issue 1: The appellant challenged the order passed by the Tribunal regarding the utilization of Cenvat credit for discharging service tax liability on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services. The Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 allowed the merger of credits earned by manufacturers and service providers. The Tribunal relied on decisions by the Delhi High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court, which permitted the use of Cenvat credit for GTA services. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's decision, stating that no substantial question of law arose. The Supreme Court had rejected a challenge to the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision, further supporting the Tribunal's ruling. Therefore, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision on this issue. Issue 2: Regarding the second issue of whether the demand of the revenue was time-barred, the respondent had informed the authorities in 2005 about the utilization of merged credits for excise duty and service tax. The Revenue issued a show-cause notice in 2008 seeking to disallow the credit transfer that occurred in 2004. The Tribunal found that the Revenue was aware of the credit transfer in 2004 based on the respondent's intimation in 2005. As the intimation amounted to knowledge on the part of the Revenue, the extended period for demand could not be invoked. The High Court noted that the Tribunal's decision was based on facts and not shown to be perverse. Therefore, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision on this issue as well. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decisions on both issues raised by the Revenue.
|
