2010 (1) TMI 683 - AT - Service Tax

Court allows manufacturer to use Cenvat credit for Service tax payment

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., LUDHIANA Versus VINAYAK TEXTILE MILLS

The Court upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order in favor of the respondent, a manufacturer of cotton yarn, regarding the utilization of Cenvat credit ... Demand - Cenvat credit - GTA services - respondent is discharging the duty liability on the final product partly from PLA and partly from the Cenvat Credit Account - There is no specific bar in Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules in utilising the credit for payment of Service tax payable by the respondent as a deemed service provider - Decided in favor of the assessee Issues:Department's appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 3-1-2008 regarding Cenvat credit utilization for Service tax payment.Analysis:The case involved an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the utilization of Cenvat credit for the payment of Service tax. The respondent, a manufacturer of cotton yarn, availed Cenvat credit for duty paid on inputs, capital goods, and Service tax paid on input services used for manufacturing finished goods. The original authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 72,945/- as the Service tax payment was made using Cenvat credit instead of cash/PLA. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) determined that a portion of the amount related to Service tax on services provided by a Goods Transport Agency (GTA) for raw material transportation. The Commissioner held that as recipients of GTA services, the respondents were deemed providers and thus used Cenvat credit for Service tax payment, as per Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules.The Department, represented by the Jt. CDR, contested the appeal, relying on a Board clarification that while the respondents were required to pay Service tax for services received, they could not be considered actual service providers. The respondents' advocate argued that Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules allowed for utilizing credit for Service tax payment for services provided by the recipient. The respondents, being deemed providers of GTA services for raw material transportation, rightfully used the credit, reducing excise duty on final products if cash payment was required.After considering the arguments from both sides, the judge noted that the respondent discharged duty liability partly from PLA and Cenvat Credit Account and was treated as a provider of GTA services for input services used in raw material receipt. Finding no specific prohibition in Rule 3(4) against using credit for Service tax payment by deemed service providers, the judge upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, rejecting the Department's appeal.