Tribunal allows credit for GTA service tax, rejecting Revenue's appeal

The Tribunal upheld the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and ruling in favor of the respondents. It was determined that the respondents, a manufacturer of excisable goods and a registered service provider, were entitled to take credit on the service tax paid for GTA service. Previous Tribunal decisions supported the respondents' position, emphasizing their eligibility to utilize the credit. The Tribunal referenced specific cases where similar credits were allowed, ultimately rejecting the Revenue's appeal and affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) order without interference.

---

---

Issues:
1. Dispute over entitlement to take credit of service tax paid on GTA service.
2. Interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 regarding credit utilization.
3. Application of previous Tribunal decisions on similar issues.
4. Manufacturer's eligibility to claim credit on service tax paid.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by Revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals) order setting aside the adjudication order. The dispute revolved around whether the respondent was entitled to take credit of the service tax paid on GTA service.

2. The contention raised was that as per rule 4(e) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the respondents could not utilize the credit for payment of tax on GTA service. The Revenue argued that since the respondents were paying tax on GTA service, they were not entitled to take credit under rule 2(p) of the Rules. Reference was made to pending issues before the Larger Bench and reliance on previous Tribunal decisions.

3. On the other hand, the respondent, a manufacturer of excisable goods and a registered service provider, argued that they were entitled to take credit based on previous Tribunal decisions. They cited cases such as Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. v. CCE and various other decisions where the Tribunal allowed credit on GTA service.

4. The Tribunal found that the issue had been previously decided in favor of the respondents even after references to the Larger Bench. It was noted that the respondents, being a manufacturer of excisable goods and a registered service provider, had been utilizing the credit paid on GTA service. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. where it was held that the service tax paid for GTA service could not be denied as a recipient of Cenvat credit account.

5. The Tribunal further referenced the decision in Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd., where it was held that the appellants were entitled to utilize the credit available for input services towards payment of service tax on GTA services. The Tribunal upheld the appeal based on the cited decisions and set aside the impugned order.

6. In light of the decisions and the respondents' eligibility to claim credit on service tax paid, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal and disposed of the cross objection accordingly. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld, and no interference was deemed necessary.

---