9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant. Rajindra Gupta for the Respondent. ORDER 1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the adjudication order was set aside. 2. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the dispute relates to as to whether the respondents was entitled to take credit of the service tax paid by them on GTA service. The contention of the learned DR is that the respondents cannot utilise the credit on payment of tax of the GTA service in terms of rule 4(e) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He also submits that the respondents is paying the tax of GTA service and therefore, they are not entitled to take credit on services under rule 2(p) of the Rules. He further, submits that the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the Service Tax authorities on GTO service and have been utilising the credit paid by them on GTO service. I find that the issue has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. (supra) held that the service tax paid for GTO service as recipient of Cenvat credit account, credit cannot be denied. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below: "It can be seen from the above reproduced provisions of rule 2(p) and rule 2(r) that the said rules defined the output services and provider of taxable services. It can be noticed from rule 2(r) that the provider of taxable services include person liable for paying service tax. Provisions of rule 2(p) defines output services, means any taxable services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts are clearly entitled to utilize the credit available to them in respect of the input service towards payment of the service tax on GTA services which is an output service by definition. Hence, applying the ratio of the cited decisions, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal." (p. 156) 6. It is seen that the appellants' own case as reported in Jindal Steel Power Ltd.'s case (supra), the respondent was paying service tax on the consulting engineer service as recipient of services from M/s. JFE Corpn. They have also taken the credit paid by them on Consulting Engineer service which has held as under: "5.2 They paid the service tax on the services received by them. Had the service tax been actually paid by the actual serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
