9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 702X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... volved is an output service. Therefore, the finding of the Commissioner that since the appellants are manufacturers of excisable goods they cannot be treated as provider of output service is not sustainable. This Tribunal's decision in the case of Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. also supports the appellant's case. - Following decision of Commissioner of Service Tax Versus Hero Honda Motors Ltd. [2012 (12) TMI 734 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided against Revenue. - Tax Case No. 44/2007 and 46/2007 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2012 - MR. ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE MR. G. MINHAJUDDIN, JJ. Ms. Smiti Sharma, Advocate for the appellant in both the appeals Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent in both the appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transport. The impugned order has held that since the appellant is a manufacturer of products, they are not entitled to using service tax credit for payment of service tax on transport services. 4. The submission of the learned representative is that this issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. and the Tribunal held that there is no restriction on the use of service tax credit for payment of service tax or for payment of excise duty. 5. Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 relate to utilization of Cenvat credit. That sub-Rule makes it clear that credit can be utilized for payment of excise duty as well as service tax on any output service. Thus, payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ater in point of time as against the decision of the Punjab and Haryana is based on the view taken by Punjab and Haryana High Court. Similarly, the view taken in this case by the Tribunal is also based on the decision rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and obviously because the same is binding on the Tribunal. In other words, the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court was followed by Delhi High Court and by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order in this appeal. 8. In our view, since the view taken by the Tribunal is based on the decisions of two High Courts referred supra and secondly, learned counsel for the revenue was not able to point out any apparent error in the two decisions of the High Courts so as to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
