2020 (6) TMI 13 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - input services - GTA Services - period March 2005 to January 2006 - HELD THAT - The impugned order has once again raised the same demand which has already been settled in favour of the assessee. The only proper course would have been to challenge the same further rather than knocking at the back door, which is not permissible. Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to denial of CENVAT Credit; Allegation of double levy by two different Officers.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to denial of CENVAT Credit:
The appellant challenged the denial of CENVAT Credit against the Order-in-Appeal, arguing that the Revenue raised a demand that had been previously settled in favor of the assessee by the Tribunal. The appellant's advocate referred to a previous Order of the Bench and a High Court judgment upholding the same, establishing the appellant's entitlement to utilize the credit of tax paid on input GTA Services. Despite these precedents, a Show Cause Notice was issued, leading to the denial of credit by the Adjudicating Authority and the First Appellate Authority. The appellant contended that the demand amounted to double levy by different Officers, which was unsustainable. The Tribunal found that the impugned order had re-raised a demand already settled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the proper course would have been to challenge it further rather than through indirect means.

2. Allegation of double levy by two different Officers:
The appellant argued that the demand made by the Revenue constituted double levy by two different Officers, which was not sustainable. The Tribunal, after examining the documents and hearing both sides, noted that the demand had been previously challenged before the same Bench, with no appeal filed against the earlier decision. Referring to a previous Order, the Tribunal reiterated that the appellant was not entitled to utilize CENVAT Credit for payment of service tax on GTA service beyond a certain period. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the demand confirmed in the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential benefits as per law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand and the impugned order due to the reiteration of a settled issue and the impermissible nature of the indirect challenge.