9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation - HELD THAT:- Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE VERSUS COCA-COLA INDIA PVT. LTD. [ 2007 (4) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT] , COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. CUS., VADODARA VERSUS NARMADA CHEMATUR PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. [ 2004 (12) TMI 93 - SUPREME COURT] , has held that if there is no revenue implication involved, then no tax is required to be paid. It has been further held that, if for the same assessee, tax paid is modavable/cenvatable, then no tax is required to be paid - the appellant is not liable to pay tax for normal period of limitation as well. Further, the appellant has deposited an amount of ₹ 6,50,002/- during the course of investigation, and on specific query, it has been replied by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Commissioner (A) vide the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the following grounds: 3.1 If the appellant is liable to pay service tax on GTA, then the appellant would be entitled to get CENVAT credit of the same, hence, making the entire situation revenue neutral. The appellant would like to rely upon the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Star Alloys Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., 2019 (21) GSTL 174 (Tri-Del.). 3.2 It is well settled law that, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the case of revenue neutral situation. It is further submitted that no mala fid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax is payable, inasmuch the entire situation is revenue neutral. It has been held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the following cases, that if there is no revenue implication involved, then no tax is required to be paid. It has been further held that, if for the same assessee, tax paid is modavable/cenvatable, then no tax is required to be paid. i. CCE, Pune Vs Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd., 2007 (213) ELT 490 (SC) ii. CCE, Vadodara Vs Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2005 (179) ELT 276 (SC). 3.6 He further submitted that, if the tax is not sustainable, then the interest and penalty are liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 4. The learned AR appearing for the revenue, reiterated the findings of the impugned order a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of limitation is concerned, I find that the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Pune Vs Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd., 2007 (213) ELT 490 (SC) and CCE, Vadodara Vs Narmada Chematur Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2005 (179) ELT 276 (SC), has held that if there is no revenue implication involved, then no tax is required to be paid. It has been further held that, if for the same assessee, tax paid is modavable/cenvatable, then no tax is required to be paid. Therefore, I find that the appellant is not liable to pay tax for normal period of limitation as well. 6.3 I further find that the appellant has deposited an amount of ₹ 6,50,002/- during the course of investigation, and on specific query, it has been replied by the appellant that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
