Tribunal rules in favor of manufacturer on service tax liability under GTA category

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, regarding the liability to pay service tax under the Goods Transport Agency (GTA) category. The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in a revenue-neutral situation and that the appellant was entitled to CENVAT credit on GTA services, leading to the setting aside of the demand for service tax, interest, and penalty. The Tribunal found the balance service tax demand, interest, and penalty to be unsustainable and provided consequential relief to the appellant, except for a specific amount already credited.

---

---

Issues:
1. Liability to pay service tax under Goods Transport Agency (GTA) category
2. Invocation of extended period of limitation
3. Availability of CENVAT credit
4. Sustainability of interest and penalty

Liability to pay service tax under GTA category:
The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, was found liable to pay service tax under the GTA category as a service recipient under Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM). A show cause notice was issued demanding service tax, interest, and penalty. The appellant contested the allegations, but the demand was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner. The appellant appealed to the Tribunal challenging the order.

Invocation of extended period of limitation:
The appellant argued that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in a revenue-neutral situation. They relied on legal precedents to support their claim, emphasizing the absence of mala fide intent and the need for evidence to prove the same. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the department failed to establish mala fide on the part of the appellant, thereby ruling the show cause notice as barred by limitation.

Availability of CENVAT credit:
The appellant contended that if liable to pay service tax on GTA, they should be entitled to CENVAT credit, making the situation revenue neutral. Citing relevant judgments, the Tribunal held that in a revenue-neutral scenario where CENVAT credit is available, the extended period cannot be invoked. The appellant's entitlement to CENVAT credit on GTA services was acknowledged, leading to the setting aside of the demand.

Sustainability of interest and penalty:
The Tribunal examined the sustainability of interest and penalty, considering the appellant's compliance with depositing an amount during the investigation and availing CENVAT credit. The Tribunal found the balance service tax demand, interest, and penalty to be unsustainable in the eyes of the law, setting them aside while confirming a specific amount already credited by the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal on merits and limitation, with consequential relief to the appellant, except for the confirmed amount subject to CENVAT credit. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 28 February 2020.

---