TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion services received for transportation of these inputs in their factory. During the period April 2008 to Sept. 2008, the appellant utilised their cenvat credit account for payment on Goods Transport Agency Services under reverse charge mechanism by utilising cenvat credit account. It was objected by the Revenue that as credit on account on GTA Service was not in their cenvat credit account, therefore, cenvat credit cannot be utilised for payment on GTA Service in terms of Notification No.10/2008-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2008. The matter was adjudicated and the demand of duty was confirmed for utilisation for payment on GTA services along with interest equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e being taken by the authorities I hold that imposition of penalty in respect of the period from 19-4-2006 is not justified and therefore the penalties in the matters covering the period after 19-4-2006 are set aside. In the appeal covering the period 1-4-2006 to 30-9-2006, the original authority is directed to requantify the amount of service tax payable by the assessee from 19-4-2006 to 30-9-2006. This appeal is disposed of in this term. Further, the said issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Maharaja Shree Ummaid Mills reported in 2012 (25) STR 81 (Tri.-Del.) again this Tribunal observed as under: 4. At this prima facie stage, we agree with the ld. SDR that the earlier decisions of the Tribunal involving the period prior ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hed the decision in the case of ITC Ltd. (supra) and observed that the assessee is eligible to utilize Cenvat credit for payment of Service Tax on GTA service prior to issue of Notification No.10/2008-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2008. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below :- "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 (Tri. - Mum.)] has held that the assessee, a manufacturing unit paying Service Tax on goods transport services, f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 undertaken or any output services was being provided, the question of paying of Service Tax through Cenvat credit account do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iable to pay the Service Tax and as such provider of taxable service in terms of Rule 2(r) and consequently gets covered by output service definition as appearing in Rule 2(p) of the Rules. As such, we find that deletion of explanation with effect from 18-4-2006 from Rule 2(p) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 would not make much difference. We also note that Uni Deritend Ltd. is a Single Member Bench decision without taking note of the earlier Division Bench judgment. In view of the above, we find no merits in the Revenue's appeals and reject the same." As the issue has been decided by this Tribunal and the same has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s Iswari Spinning Mills reported in 2014 (35) STR J134 (M....