Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2012 (10) TMI 558

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... om 1.3.2008, i.e., after the period of dispute. Thus when the respondent was paying service tax on GTA service, they were doing so on an output service and, therefore, they were entitled to utilise CENVAT credit for payment of such tax. The definition of person liable for paying service tax and the definition of provider of taxable service given under Rule 2 (q) & (r) respectively seem to be supportive of this argument. As decided in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH Versus M/s NAHAR INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD and Others [2010 (5) TMI 608 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] there is no legal bar to the utilisation of Cenvat credit for the purpose of payment of service tax on the GTA services - the service tax was paid out of the Ce .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... AT credit was utilised, and penalties were proposed. The demands and allied proposals were contested by the party. The original authority, in adjudication of the dispute, confirmed the above demand against the assessee and imposed penalties on them. It appears from the order-in-original that the demand was raised on GTA services used for outward transportation of final products from the factory. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and obtained relief. The appellate authority considered the assessee as provider of GTA services and, accordingly, held that utilisation of CENVAT credit of the service tax/excise duty paid on input services/inputs, for payment of service tax on GTA services was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... service , person liable for paying service tax , provider of taxable service , etc. She also points out that the demand raised in the show-cause notice was apparently based on the then existing Explanation to Rule 2(p) of the CCR, 2004. It is submitted that this Explanation was applicable only to a person who was neither manufacturer of final products nor provider of output service and was not applicable to the respondent who was a manufacturer of excisable goods. Therefore, it is argued, omission of the Explanation with effect from 19.4.2006 was of no consequence insofar as the respondent was concerned. Further it is submitted that the definition of output service itself was substantially amended with effect from 1.3.2008, whereby GTA serv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... argued with reference to an Explanation to Rule 2(p) (definition of output service ), this provision is reproduced below : (p) output service means any taxable service provided by the provider of taxable service, to a customer, client, subscriber, policy holder or any other person, as the case may be, and the expressions provider and provided shall be construed accordingly; Explanation For the removal of doubts it is hereby clarified that if a person liable for paying service tax does not provide any taxable service or does not manufacture final products, the service for which he is liable to pay service tax shall be deemed to be the output service. The above Explanation was omitted with effect from 19.4.2006, i.e., prior to the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. If that be so, the respondent would squarely fit in the definition of provider of taxable service . In other words, the respondent who was liable to pay service tax on GTA service was also to be deemed to be the provider of that service. This is precisely view taken by the lower appellate authority and the same is supported by the decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondent. All the cited decisions were rendered for periods prior to 1.3.2008, the date on which GTA service came to be excluded from the scope of the definition of output service . The decision rendered by this Tribunal in the case of ITC Ltd. (supra) seems to have been correctly distinguished in the case of Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates