2017 (9) TMI 69

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....27, 28, 34, 35, 38, 39 of the Schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are availing CENVAT credit in terms of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). They have availed the credit of service tax paid on the outward transportation of goods service by road falling under the taxable category of service under Goods Transport Agency' service during the period January 2010 to May 2010. The GTA was received by them for the period March 2007 to March 2010 for transport of their goods beyond the place of removal (i.e., the factory gate) for delivery to their customers. Such availment of credit after the sale or delivery of the goods prima facie appeared to be wrong inasmuch as CENVAT credit of service tax paid is admissible towards such output....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot attended the personal hearing and the lower authority has decided the case ex parte based on the available records. Aggrieved by the order of the lower authority, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who rejected the appeal of the appellant and hence, the present appeal. 3. heard both the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order denying the CENVAT credit on GTA services is wrong and not sustainable in law and is contrary to the various binding judicial precedents wherein it has been held that the 'place of removal' is the customer's premises. She further submitted that before the Commissioner (A) though they have paid the service tax on GTA and did not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y eligible to the appellant under definition of Rule 2(I) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR vehemently supported the impugned order and has stated that the appellant has paid the entire liability of Rs. 4,77,000/- and has stated before the Commissioner (A) that they are not contesting the service tax liability. Regarding the interest amount due on the service tax, the appellant has stated before the Commissioner (A) that the same will also be paid shortly. Learned AR further submitted that after conceding the liability before the Commissioner (A) and after having paid the same, the appellants are barred from contesting the service tax liability by raising the fresh grounds before this Tribunal. In support....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e case of Pratibha Processors Vs. UOI: 1996 (88) ELT 12 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that interest is an accessory of the principle duty and if duty is payable, interest is also payable for the delayed payment of duty. As far as imposition of penalty under Rule 15(1) of CCR is concerned, the learned Commissioner (A) has relied upon the findings of the lower authority and has come to the conclusion that the appellant have contravened Rule 15(1) of CCR and therefore is liable to pay penalty. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the law stands in favour of the appellant as far as the CENVAT credit on GTA service is concerned but since they have paid the duty because there was confusion during the rele....