2016 (1) TMI 58 - AT - Central Excise

Availment of Cenvat Credit of service tax - GTA Service - Held that - provision of Rule-3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, read with Rule-9 of Cenvat Credit Rules were sought to be applied for denying to the Cenvat Credit on the ground that TR-6 challan is not a proper document for availing Cenvat Credit - authoritative judicial pronouncement (unreported) of the Jurisdictional High Court on the same issue, in favour of the assessees, we hold that the impugned order cannot be found faulty. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Availment of Cenvat Credit on TR-6 challan for paying service tax on GTA services.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Goa, regarding the availment of Cenvat Credit on TR-6 challan used for paying service tax on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services. The issue revolved around the interpretation of Rule-3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and Rule-9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, specifically during the period from 24.03.2005 to 15.06.2005. The contention was whether TR-6 challan could be considered a valid document for availing Cenvat Credit. The departmental representative argued in line with the lower authorities' findings.

The Tribunal examined the submissions made by the departmental representative and reviewed the records. The main issue was whether the TR-6 challan could be accepted as a valid document for availing Cenvat Credit on service tax paid for GTA services during the specified period. Reference was made to a judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay which clarified the eligibility criteria for availing service tax credit. The Court highlighted the importance of Rule-3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, in allowing the credit for service tax paid on input services.

The Tribunal observed that the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, did not specify the documents required for availing service tax credit during the disputed period concerning GTA services. It was noted that the appellant did not mention any specific documents other than the TR-6 challan. The Tribunal referred to a judgment by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, emphasizing that if the duty payment was genuine and not disputed, the credit should not be denied. In this case, the authorities had accepted that the appellant was entitled to Cenvat Credit, and the TR-6 challan was considered valid proof of service tax payment.

Based on the judicial pronouncement by the Jurisdictional High Court on a similar issue, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was not faulty. Consequently, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the decision in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the validity of the TR-6 challan as sufficient evidence for availing Cenvat Credit on service tax paid for GTA services during the relevant period.