9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 7 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT Credit - input services - services of goods transport agency utilized - HELD THAT - The flexibility afforded by the clarification in circular dated 21st August 2008 has been upheld by the decision of the Tribunal in COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD VERSUS SIRHIND STEEL LTD. 2009 (8) TMI 407 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD and we are also informed that, since the filing of this appeal, the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat has dismissed the plaint of Revenue against the decision in re Sri Hind Steel Ltd. - the dispute is now non-existent. The appeal of Revenue is limited to the acceptance by the first appellate authority of the submissions made in the appeal before him. The analysis of the submission in the grounds of appeal of Revenue appears to be flawed. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues involved:
Entitlement for CENVAT credit on services of 'goods transport agency'; Compliance with documentation requirements; Applicability of circular dated August 2008; Acceptance of submissions by first appellate authority; Dispute regarding the second demand. Entitlement for CENVAT credit on services of 'goods transport agency': The appeal by Revenue against M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd involved two demands related to abatement ineligibility and non-inclusion of freight amounts. The first appellate authority relied on circulars clarifying entitlement to abatement even without specific endorsements on consignment notes, subject to conditions like non-availing of CENVAT credit on capital goods and inputs. The absence of findings on alleged short-payment of tax and the appellant's submission of tax discharge were considered sufficient to set aside the original order. Compliance with documentation requirements and applicability of circular dated August 2008: The primary dispute centered around the entitlement for CENVAT credit on services of a 'goods transport agency' during the relevant period. The first appellate authority allowed the credit based on certification submitted by M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Revenue argued that documentation requirements were not met, while the respondent claimed that the circular of August 2008 should apply retrospectively. The Tribunal noted the reliance on previous decisions and the dismissal of Revenue's appeal against a similar case, rendering the dispute non-existent. Acceptance of submissions by first appellate authority: Regarding the second demand, the appeal of Revenue was limited to challenging the acceptance of submissions made before the first appellate authority. The Tribunal found flaws in the analysis of Revenue's submissions, particularly in the discrepancy related to tax payments in different months. The Tribunal concluded that the premise of the appeal was flawed, rendering Revenue's claim not subject to judicial testing. Dispute regarding the second demand: The analysis of Revenue's appeal on the second demand highlighted discrepancies in the claim of tax payment and the reviewing authority's conclusion. The Tribunal found the grounds of appeal to be in error and, therefore, dismissed Revenue's appeal based on the lack of merit. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeal based on the findings related to entitlement for CENVAT credit, compliance with documentation requirements, applicability of circulars, acceptance of submissions by the first appellate authority, and the dispute regarding the second demand. The judgment was pronounced on 31/07/2019 by the Tribunal members specified.
|
