GTA service tax under section 68(2) to be paid in cash, Cenvat credit utilization held impermissible

CESTAT held that service tax on GTA services received by the appellant, being payable under section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, had to be discharged in cash and not through Cenvat credit. Since the appellant neither manufactured dutiable final products nor provided taxable output services, input service credit on telephone, security, repair and maintenance, and consultancy services could not be used for payment of tax on GTA services. Consequently, the wrongly utilized credit was recoverable. The SCN was held within limitation. However, penalty under section 78 was set aside, as there was no suppression or intent to evade, given full disclosure in ST-3 returns.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Utilization of Cenvat credit for payment of service tax on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services.
2. Classification of GTA services as "output service."
3. Time-barred nature of the service tax demand.
4. Imposition of penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Utilization of Cenvat Credit for Payment of Service Tax on GTA Services:
The appellants, a public limited company, obtained Centralized Service Tax Registration and utilized Cenvat credit to pay service tax on GTA services received. The department contended that the appellant was not entitled to use Cenvat credit for this purpose because the GTA service received was not their "output service." According to rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, Cenvat credit can only be utilized for payment of duty on finished excisable goods or service tax on output services provided by an assessee. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for service tax along with interest and imposed penalties, asserting that the service tax should have been paid in cash.

2. Classification of GTA Services as "Output Service":
The appellant argued that under section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, and relevant rules, they were considered a "provider of taxable service" and that the GTA service received should be treated as their "output service." They cited the Explanation to rule 2(p) (prior to its deletion on 19-4-2006) which deemed services on which tax was payable by the recipient as "output service." However, the department maintained that the GTA service received could not be classified as an "output service" and that the service tax on such services should be paid in cash. The Tribunal agreed with the department's view, stating that rule 2(r) created a legal fiction for charging service tax but did not extend to treating received services as "output services."

3. Time-Barred Nature of the Service Tax Demand:
The appellant contended that part of the service tax demand was time-barred. The Tribunal found that all show-cause notices were issued within the one-year limitation period from the relevant date (the date on which ST-3 returns were to be filed). Hence, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, confirming that the demands were within the permissible time frame.

4. Imposition of Penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994:
The appellant argued against the imposition of penalties under section 78, which requires an element of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intentional contravention to evade tax. The Tribunal noted that the show-cause notices lacked such allegations and that the appellant had consistently filed ST-3 returns declaring the use of Cenvat credit. Additionally, the appellant had communicated with the Range Officer about their entitlement to use Cenvat credit. Consequently, the Tribunal found no basis for the penalty under section 78 and set aside the penalty imposed by the Commissioner.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order confirming the service tax demand along with applicable interest but set aside the penalty imposed under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

---