2014 (7) TMI 541

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the case are that the appellant, manufacturer of excisable goods, was liable to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism on 'Transportation of Goods by Road Service' ('GTA service' for the sake of brevity) received by them during the period 01.01.2005 to 30.09.2005 and 01.10.2007 to 29.02.2008. Appellant discharged their service tax liability for these periods through CENVAT credit instead of cash. The revenue objected to the payment of service tax on GTA service through CENVAT Credit on the ground that as per Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, CENVAT credit of 'input' / capital goods / 'input service' could only be utilized by a service provider for discharging its service tax liability on its 'output service', and that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Excise, Raigad Vs. Santogen Exports - [2009 (240) ELT 530 (Tri. Mumbai)] in support of his arguments. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. I find that in the case of Shree Rajasthan Syntex Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur - [2011 (24) STR 670 (Tri. Del.)], CESTAT held in similar set of facts and circumstances as under:            3. After hearing the learned DR, we find that the issue is no more res integra and stands settled by various decisions of the Tribunal, which also stands confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Visaka Industries Ltd. reported in [2007 (8) S.T.R. 231 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has drawn our attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ITC Ltd. v. CCE, Guntur reported in 2011 (23) S.T.R. 41 (Tri. - Bang.) holding that the appellant was not entitled to utilise the Cenvat Credit, for payment of service tax on the GTA services, so received by the appellant. 5. However, we find that facts in the above case of ITC Ltd. are entirely different inasmuch as it is seen that M/s. ITC was 'neither manufacturing any dutiable product' nor providing any output services to any customer or client. As such, it was observed that though the services received by them is deemed to be an output services but as the Cenvat Credit on inputs or input services was not available to them as no manufacturing activity was being und....