9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 152 - AT - Service TaxCENVAT credit - input service - GTA service - Held that - reliance placed in the case of Commr. of Central Excise & Service Tax Vs. Supreme Industries Ltd 2011 (6) TMI 898 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that in respect of GTA service received by the assesse, there is no question of payment of Service Tax through the Cenvat Credit account and the same has to be paid in cash prior to 19-04-2006 - In the present case the dispute relates to the period January, 2005 to August, 2005 - the demand of Service Tax alongwith interest is justified in light of above decision - demand of service tax with interest upheld - penalty set aside - decided partly in favor of appellant.
Issues: Applicability of Cenvat Credit on GTA service for Chrome Concentrate export, confirmation of Service Tax demand, imposition of penalty, interpretation of legal provisions regarding payment of Service Tax through Cenvat Credit.
Analysis: The case involved the dispute of whether the appellant, engaged in Chrome Concentrate production and export, could utilize Cenvat Credit for GTA service. The Revenue contended that Cenvat Credit on GTA service was not permissible. The Adjudicating authority upheld the demand of Service Tax, interest, and penalty, which was affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeal). The appellant relied on various Tribunal decisions in their favor, arguing that they were entitled to utilize Cenvat Credit for GTA service. However, the Revenue cited a recent Tribunal decision stating that Service Tax on GTA service had to be paid in cash before 19-04-2006, not through Cenvat Credit. The decision clarified the distinction between persons liable for Service Tax as service recipients based on their activities. The Tribunal noted that during the period in question (January 2005 to August 2005), the demand for Service Tax with interest was justified due to the nature of the GTA service received by the appellant. However, the imposition of penalty was deemed unwarranted. Consequently, the impugned order was modified to uphold the demand for Service Tax with interest while setting aside the penalty. In conclusion, the appeal by the appellant was disposed of with the modification in the order, emphasizing the requirement to pay Service Tax on GTA service in cash during the specified period, as per the legal interpretation provided in the case analysis.
|
