9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... & 1559 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 2-7-2015 - R. Sudhakar And K. B. K. Vasuki, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr A P Srinivas For the Respondent : Mr Karthik ORDER ( Delivered By R. Sudhakar, J. ) Aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal, which held the issue in favour of the assessee, the Department is before this Court by filing the present appeals. This Court, vide order dated 2.7.10, while admitting the appeals, framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the respondents were entitled to utilise the Cenvat Credit for payment of service tax on Goods Transport Agency services received by them in view of the CBEC Circuler 345/4/2005- TRN dated 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orised credit along with interest and penalty. After adjudication, order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-II, Pondicherry, confirming the demand under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and further imposed interest under Section 11AB of the Act and penalty of ₹ 15,000/- under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order dated 29.8.07, upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. Against the said order, the assessee moved the Tribunal by filing an appeal. The Tribunal, after considering the matter allowed the appeal filed by the assessee following its earlier decisions in the case of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... matter dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee following its earlier decisions in the case of India Cements Ltd. (2007 (7) STR 569) and RRD Tex Pvt. Ltd. (2007 (8) STR 186). 6. Aggrieved over the same, the Department is before this Court by filing the present appeals. 7. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/Department and the learned counsel appearing for the assessee and perused the materials available on record. 8. It is fairly stated by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the two questions of law raised above have already been considered by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem - Vs - Cheran Spinners Ltd. (2014 (33) STR 148 (Mad.)) and, therefore, it is submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given at Rule 2(q) and (r) convey similar meaning . 2. The assessee herein is engaged in manufacture of yarn of different kinds. The assessee holds Service Tax Registration for the Service Goods Transport Agency (hereinafter referred to as GTA ). It is seen from the narration of facts that during the period between 1-1-2005 and 30-9-2005, the assessee had paid the Service Tax due on the GTA service by utilizing the Cenvat credit availed on inputs and capital goods. The adjudicating authority viewed that such adjustment of the Cenvat credit side towards the liability on Service Tax was contrary to the Rule. It was held that the Cenvat credit could be utilised only in respect of input service as per definition of 2(l) of Cenvat Credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce would be entitled to in the matter of Cenvat credit adjustment. Thus, a reading of Rule 2(l) and 2(p) would show that they cover two different situations and though their operations are totally different, yet, for the purpose of giving credit to the Service Tax payable from the Cenvat credit available, the recipient is also entitled to the same relief as a provider of the service. Thus, we do not find any error in the reasoning of the Tribunal that in the payment of Service Tax liability by the recipient of taxable service, such assessees are also entitled to make use of Cenvat credit to discharge their liability under the Service Tax provisions. Consequently, we do not agree with the submission of the Revenue to set aside the order of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
