9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erein the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the respondent is eligible for use of CENVAT amount for discharge of Service Tax liability on the GTA services upto 18.04.2006. 4. Ld.D.R. would draw my attention to the Order-in-Appeal and state that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in coming to such a conclusion and reads grounds of appeal. I may reproduce the said grounds of appeal. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate properly that, in terms of the explanation to Rule 2(p) ibid, the service for which the respondents are liable to pay Service Tax, shall be deemed to be the output service, provided that the person paying the Service Tax does not manufacture final products and does not provide any taxable service. Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order-in-Appeal that I hold that the appellant was eligible for payment of Service Tax on the said services from CENVAT Credit account upto 18.04.2006. However, the appellant is not eligible for utilization of CENVAT Credit account/capital goods credit account after deletion of said explanation on 19.04.2006. Therefore, w.e.f. 19.04.2006, they are liable to pay Service Tax on GTA service in cash, is not acceptable. 7. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in appreciating the Rule 3(4) wherein it stipulates that CENVAT Credit can be utilized for (e) Service Tax on any output service: In terms of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 output service means any taxable service provided by the provider of taxable service to the service receiver. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... availing the benefit of CENVAT Credit on the inputs as well as capital goods. The CENVAT Credit availed by the respondent is not in dispute. The only issue to be settled is regarding utilization of such credit by the respondent for discharge of Service Tax liability on GTA services which have been received by him for transportation of inward/outward freight. 7. I find that the issue involved in this case is no more res-integra as correctly pointed out by ld.Chartered Accountant. Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd has followed their own judgment in the case of Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd, which, with respect I may reproduce. As identical question of law and facts is involved, therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise, who set aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority and held that services received by the respondents on which they were liable to pay service tax became Output Service for the purpose of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and, therefore, service tax could be paid out of the Cenvat credit, vide order dated 17-10-2006 (Annexure A/2). 5. The aforesaid order (Annexure A/2) was challenged by the revenue by filing an appeal before the Tribunal, who dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 7-3-2007 (Annexure A/3). Now, the revenue has challenged the order (Annexure A/3) of the Tribunal in this appeal, which was admitted to consider the following question of law:- Whether a person w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
