2018 (1) TMI 364 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - reverse charge mechanism - delivering the transformers at their premises - Held that - in view of the provisions of Rule 2(i)(d) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, it is the obligation of the service receiver namely the Power Corporation which is liable to service tax - the appellant was not liable to pay service tax under the scheme of the Act and the Rules and particularly as clarified vide N/N. 25/2012-ST - the service tax of ₹ 13,11,933/- paid by them is an excess payment, service tax liable to be refunded to the appellant, thus, the action of appellant action of taking credit of the service tax so paid does not call for any adverse action on them - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit on transportation services.
2. Interpretation of input service definition.
3. Liability to pay service tax on transportation of finished goods.
4. Double taxation concern.
5. Applicability of Rule 2(1)(d) of Service Tax Rules, 1994.
6. Obligation of service receiver for service tax payment.
7. Refund of excess service tax paid.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing electric transformers, availed Cenvat Credit of service tax paid on transportation charges for delivering finished goods. The impugned order disallowed the credit, asserting that transportation of goods does not qualify as an input service and the delivery of finished goods cannot be considered as delivery to buyers on FOR basis.

2. The appellant cited a previous Tribunal decision allowing similar credit for outward transportation services. They argued that their activity of arranging transportation was akin to providing Goods Transport Agency Service. The appellant ceased paying service tax on transportation services based on this contention, supported by Notification No. 25/2012 exempting certain services from service tax.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) order in a related case affirmed that service tax liability falls on the entity paying the freight, in this case, the Power Corporation. The appellant's role was likened to a transport agency, and it was deemed inappropriate for them to pay service tax on freight and then have the Power Corporation pay tax on the same amount.

4. The Tribunal, considering Rule 2(1)(d) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, held that the obligation to pay service tax rested with the service receiver, i.e., the Power Corporation. The appellant, functioning as a Goods Transport Agency, was not liable to pay service tax, leading to a refund of the excess service tax paid by the appellant.

5. The judgment emphasized that the appellant's status as a GTA aligned with the provisions of the Act and Rules, warranting the refund of the service tax paid. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and disposed of the related miscellaneous application as infructuous.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues addressed, the arguments presented, and the legal reasoning behind the Tribunal's decision, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case.