9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngly is not entitled to take Cenvat credit of the service tax paid by the provider of service - GTA. 2. The brief facts are that show cause notice dated 8/2/2008 was issued as it appeared to revenue that the appellant should have paid the service tax for the inputs received in the factory and as the appellant had not deposited the service tax and the same have been paid by the GTA there has been violation of Rule 2(1)(d)(V) of service tax Rules read with provisions of Notification number 36/2004 - ST. It further appeared that Rule 9(1) (e) of Cenvat credit rules, 2004 provides that Cenvat credit shall be taken by the manufacturer on the basis of a Challan evidencing payment of service tax by the person liable to pay service tax under subcl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue again demanded tax from manufacturer on contention that it was the liability of the manufacturer to pay the tax, was held not acceptable. It was further held that once tax is already paid on the services it was not open to the department to confirm the same against the manufacturer appellant in respect of the same service. The said ruling was followed by this Tribunal in 2014 (2) TMI 100 - CESTAT Mumbai, in the case of Umasons Auto Compo Private Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, where the recipient of GTA service had paid the service tax to the provider of service and the provider had paid to the revenue, and the appellant had availed the Cenvat credit, it was held that there is no dispute regarding payment of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hall be paid by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed at the rate specified and all the provisions of this chapter shall apply to such person as if he is the person liable for paying the service tax in relation to such service. I find that the words "in respect of such taxable service as may be notified", have been inserted in subsection 2 with effect from 1/7/2012 by the finance act 2012. Thus I hold that prior to 1/7/2012, under the provisions of section 68 (1), the tax already has been deposited by the GTA in the facts of the present case. I further hold that Rule 2(1) (d) (v) of service tax rules does not override the provisions of the Act. Moreover I find that it has been clarified by CBEC in circular number 97/8/2007 - S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
