2024 (9) TMI 702 - HC - Service Tax

Applicability of the exemption provisions under the N/N. 30/2012 dated 20 June 2012 - CENVAT Credit - HELD THAT - The appeal failed to raise any dispute in respect of the findings which were rendered by the Commissioner with regard to the applicability of Clause (e) of the Notification 30/2012 dated 20 June 2012. The appeal fails to place on the record any material which may have established that the findings returned with respect to the provision of services to body corporates was either arbitrary or perverse. There are no ground to entertain the instant appeal. The same fails and shall stand dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of exemption provisions under Notification 30/2012 dated 20 June 2012
2. Issues related to CENVAT credit

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner challenged the judgment of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated 10 October 2023, primarily questioning the applicability of the exemption provisions under Notification 30/2012 dated 20 June 2012 and issues concerning CENVAT credit. The Commissioner contended that the respondent was not liable to pay service tax on GTA services rendered to certain clients classified as "body corporates" as per the notification. The Commissioner dropped the demand raised in the show cause notices based on this classification.

2. The CESTAT, in its order, addressed the issue of CENVAT credit for the period 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Commissioner examined the availed CENVAT credit and found it admissible to the respondent. The credit was utilized for payment of service tax in compliance with the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner noted that the credit availed on services like Warehousing, Air Transportation, and Rail Transportation was legitimate and could be used against service tax liabilities.

3. The appellant, in the subsequent appeal, failed to challenge the Commissioner's findings on the applicability of the exemption provisions under the said notification. The High Court observed that there was no evidence presented to dispute the Commissioner's conclusions regarding the provision of services to body corporates. The appeal lacked specific arguments or evidence to demonstrate any arbitrariness or perversity in the Commissioner's decision.

4. The High Court, considering the lack of substantive grounds in the appeal and the absence of material challenging the Commissioner's findings, dismissed the appeal. The Court emphasized that the appeal did not highlight any specific errors in the Commissioner's order and that the findings were based on the evidence provided by the respondent. Consequently, the appeal was deemed unsuccessful and was dismissed by the High Court.