2009 (11) TMI 136 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat Credit- output service- The assessee utilized input service credit for payment of service tax on GTA service availed for inward transportation of inputs and outputs transportation of finished goods. The revenue denied said credit on ground that payment of same should have been made in cash and not through Cenvat account, which can be utilized only for payment of service tax on any output service. In the light of the decision of Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. v. CST 2009 -TMI - 34814 - CESTAT, KOLKATA, held that, as per Explanation of Rule 2(p) reads that is aperson liable to pay service tax does not provide any taxable services or does not manufacture any final products, the service for which he is liable to pay service tax shall be deemed to be the output service. In the instant case, the assesee was not a service provider, hence the service in question was an output service. Thus the appeal filed by revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 regarding payment of service tax on GTA service through TR6 Challans or CENVAT account.

Analysis:
The main issue in this case revolved around the interpretation of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 concerning the payment of service tax on GTA service. The revenue contended that the inward and outward transportation services should have been paid in cash through TR6 Challans rather than through the CENVAT account, which is specifically designated for the payment of service tax on output services. The learned JDR argued that GTA service should be considered an input service and not an output service, citing a previous Tribunal case for support. On the contrary, the learned Advocate referred to a different case where GTA service was treated as an output service, allowing for the utilization of credit for payment. He also relied on another case where credit could be used for paying service tax on GTA services deemed as output service.

The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the relevant provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It was noted that the respondents were liable to pay service tax, making them service providers as per the rules. The Explanation to rule 2(p) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 stipulates that if a person liable to pay service tax does not provide any taxable service or manufacture final products, the service for which the tax is due shall be deemed to be the output service. In this case, as the respondent was not a service provider, the service in question was deemed an output service, falling under the purview of rule 3(4)(e) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal found that the case of the respondent aligned with the precedent set in Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd.

Based on these considerations, the Tribunal concluded that there was no infirmity in the impugned order and upheld the decision. Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, affirming the position that the payment of service tax on GTA service through the CENVAT account was permissible under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.