9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 541 - AT - Service TaxUtilisation of cenvat credit for payment of service tax on GTA services - reverse charge - The appellants are availing the services of goods transport agency - period 01.01.2005 to 30.09.2005 and 01.10.2007 to 29.02.2008 - Held that - assessee, a manufacturing unit paying Service tax on goods transport services, fall within the definition of provider of taxable service under Rule 2(r) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which includes a person liable for paying Service tax. As such, it was held that payment of Service tax in respect of services rendered by Goods Transport Agency through Cenvat Credit was appropriate - Cenvat credit can be utilised towards payment of Service Tax in respect of services received from Goods Transport Agency inasmuch as by a deemed fiction of law service recipient is held to be output service provider - payment of service tax liability of GTA service by appellants through CENVAT Credit is as per law. As, there is no demand of service tax against the appellants, the penalties imposed on them under Section 76 & 77 of the Finance Act, 1994, and under Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 are set aside - Following decision of Shree Rajasthan Syntex Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur 2011 (8) TMI 265 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Applicability of CENVAT Credit Rules for payment of service tax on GTA service. 2. Correctness of Orders-in-Appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Interpretation of Rule 2(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. 4. Legal validity of utilizing CENVAT Credit for service tax payment on GTA service. Analysis: 1. The appeals were filed against Orders-in-Appeal by M/s. Rasna Private Limited regarding the payment of service tax under the reverse charge mechanism on 'Transportation of Goods by Road Service' through CENVAT Credit. The Revenue objected, stating that CENVAT Credit could only be used by a service provider for their 'output service' and not by a service recipient like the appellant. The demands of service tax were confirmed, along with penalties for non/later filing of ST-3 Returns for specific periods. 2. The appellant argued that they were liable to pay service tax on GTA service as per Rule 2(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, and were deemed to be the provider of GTA service under Rule 2(r) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support their argument. On the contrary, the Revenue supported the correctness of the Orders-in-Appeal, citing a relevant case law. 3. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was held that a manufacturing unit paying service tax on goods transport services falls within the definition of 'provider of taxable service' under Rule 2(r) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant was eligible to pay tax on GTA services received from their CENVAT Credit account. The Tribunal distinguished another case where the appellant was not entitled to utilize CENVAT Credit for service tax payment on GTA services due to different circumstances. 4. Ultimately, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing both appeals with consequential relief. It was held that the payment of service tax liability on GTA service by the appellant through CENVAT Credit was lawful. Consequently, the penalties imposed on the appellants were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, relevant case laws cited, and the final decision by the Tribunal.
|
