9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 69 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - GTA service - place of removal - Rule 2(I) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - the appellant before the Commissioner (A) has categorically conceded the service tax liability and has paid the entire service tax amount of ₹ 4,77,000/- and also promised to pay interest in due course which of course has not yet been paid. Further, I also find that in paragraph 5 of the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (A) has recorded the factum of admission by the appellant and thereafter, the learned Commissioner (A) has not given any findings whether the appellant is entitled for CENVAT Credit on service tax paid on GTA or not. As far as interest liability is concerned, the appellant is liable to pay the interest as promised by the appellant before the Commissioner (A). As far as penalty is concerned, in view of the facts and circumstances enumerated above, I am of the view that appellants are not liable to pay the penalty and therefore, I set aside the penalty imposed by the learned Commissioner (A). Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Denial of CENVAT credit on GTA services - Contesting service tax liability after conceding before Commissioner (A) - Imposition of penalty under Rule 15(1) of CCR Denial of CENVAT credit on GTA services: The case involved the appellant challenging the denial of CENVAT credit on service tax paid for outward transportation of goods to the customer premises. The appellant argued that their transactions were FOR sales to the customer premises, fulfilling conditions under Circular No.97/8/2007-ST. They contended that the customers' premises should be considered the 'place of removal,' making them eligible for CENVAT credit under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant cited various judicial precedents supporting their claim, including decisions like Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE and Lafarge India Ltd. Vs. CCE. The appellant emphasized that the issue of denying CENVAT credit on outward transportation had been settled in their favor by previous tribunal decisions. Contesting service tax liability after conceding before Commissioner (A): The appellant had initially conceded the service tax liability before the Commissioner (A) and paid the entire amount. However, they later contested the liability, arguing that they were entitled to CENVAT credit on GTA services. The learned AR opposed this, stating that once the liability was admitted and paid, the appellant could not raise new grounds for contesting the service tax liability before the Tribunal. The AR relied on various legal decisions to support the argument that new pleas or grounds could not be introduced at the appellate stage. Imposition of penalty under Rule 15(1) of CCR: The Commissioner (A) had imposed a penalty under Rule 15(1) of CCR, holding the appellant liable for contravening the rule. The appellant's counsel argued that while the law favored them regarding CENVAT credit on GTA services, they had paid the duty due to confusion during the relevant period. The appellant maintained that there was no intention to evade duty, especially considering the consistent judicial decisions in favor of CENVAT credit on GTA services. The Tribunal found that the appellant, having conceded the liability before the Commissioner (A), was barred from contesting it further. However, the Tribunal set aside the penalty, considering the circumstances and the appellant's compliance with the payment of interest as promised before the Commissioner (A). This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues of denial of CENVAT credit on GTA services, contesting service tax liability after conceding before Commissioner (A), and the imposition of penalty under Rule 15(1) of CCR, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal arguments and decisions involved in the case.
|
