2017 (1) TMI 379

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he relevant period there was no change in the provisions of Rule 2(r) - the appellant is entitled to utilise the cenvat credit for discharge of service tax for the commission paid to the overseas agents - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr.Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. Sudeep Singh, Advocate- for the appellant Sh. V. Gupta, AR- for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal 1. The appellant is a manufacturer of acrylic fibre, acrylic top etc and were availing the facility of Cenvat Credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods and service tax paid on inputs services used in or in relation to manufacture of final products. The appellants are availing the services of foreign a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... riod involved in the present appeal is from 19.04.2006 to 30.09.2006. There are various decisions of the Tribunal as also of various High Courts laying down that the cenvat credit earned on various input capital goods or input services can be utilised for payment of service tax on GTA services. It may not be out of place to mention here that GTA services enjoy the same statues as the commission agent to overseas agents inasmuch as in both the cases. It is recipient of the services which is required to discharge the service tax liability. However, it is seen that Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court decision in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. Nahar Industrial Enterprises ltd. [2011 (104) RLTONLINE 3 (P & H) = 2012 (25) STR 129 (P & H)] and Hi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tri. Del.) has held that such utilisation is in accordance with the law inasmuch as the Rule 2(r) of Cenvat Credit Rules conferred status of service provider to an assessee who paid the Service Tax as a recipient of service. The later two decisions are by the Division Bench of the Tribunal whereas the decisions relied upon by learned DR are by Single Member Bench. It is also seen that while delivering the decision, Single Member Bench has not taken into consideration the provisions of Rule 2(r). For better appreciation, we reproduce the relevant paragraph and reasoning as adopted by the division bench in the case of Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. "2. It stands contended before us under Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, Cenvat credit may be u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X