9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse charge mechanism, was deemed to be the provider of output service (GTA service) and, accordingly, held to be entitled to utilise CENVAT credit on inputs/input services/capital goods towards payment of service tax on the GTA service - in favour of assessee. - Service Tax Appeal No. 2134 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 23-1-2013 - Shri P. G. Chacko, J. Mr. S. Ramasubramanian, Consultant for appellant Mr. A. K. Nigam, Additional Commissioner (AR) for respondent Mr. P.G. Chacko, J. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed mainly against demand of service tax and education cesses totaling to ₹ 3,36,083/- for the period from April 2007 to March 2008. A penalty of ₹ 3,26,477/- imposed on them under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der of adjudication was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal of the assessee. 3. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, I have found (a) that, during the period of dispute, the appellant was admittedly liable to pay service tax on the GTA service received by them and used for inward transportation of raw materials and outward transportation of final products vide Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994; (b) that, during the period of dispute, output service meant 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, vide Rule 2(p) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; (c ) that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, accordingly, held to be entitled to utilise CENVAT credit on inputs/input services/capital goods towards payment of service tax on the GTA service; (i) that the appellant has also contested the Section 78 penalty on the ground that none of the ingredients for such a penalty was alleged in the show-cause notice and on the further ground that there were certain decisions of this Tribunal which enabled the appellant to claim CENVAT credit on input services and utilise it for payment of service tax on GTA service; (j) that the respondent through the learned Additional Commissioner (AR) refers to Panchmahal Steel Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Cus., Vadodara-II [2008 (12) S.T.R. 447 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] whereby a similar question was re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion was referred by a regular Bench of this Tribunal to Larger Bench in the case of Panchmahal Steel Ltd. (supra). Obviously, the referring Bench did not have the advantage of considering the High Court s decision. At the present stage, one has to follow the view taken by the Hon ble High Court, in the absence of any binding judicial precedent to the contra. Accordingly, it is held that the appellant was, during the material period, entitled to take CENVAT credit on input services and utilise the same for payment of service tax on the GTA service. Consequently, the impugned demands are liable to be set aside. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed. (Pronounced and dictated in open court) - - Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
