AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 280
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted on following substantial question of law :- "Whether the appellant can be said to be "Provider" of any "output services" and is entitled for utilization of Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 prior to amendment dated 1-3-2008." 4. Brief facts necessary to understand the dispute are narrated as under : 5. M/s. Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. (appellant but referred to herein as "Assessee") is a registered Company under Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at P.O. Hargaon, District Sitapur and is running sugar/distillery Units thereat. It is engaged in manufacture of Cane Sugar/Vacuum Pan Sugar and Ethyl Alcohol falling under Sub Heading No. 1701 11 90 and Sub Heading No. 2207 20 00 respectively of First Schedule of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "Act 1985"). 6. Sugar Molasses is a by-product in manufacture of Sugar and comes under Heading No. 1703 10 00 of Act, 1985. It attracts specific rate of duty. Excise duty on Sugar and Molasses is paid on their clearances from factory as per procedure set out under Central Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2002"). Assessee also use....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r paying service tax' and 'provider of taxable service' are defined in Rule 2(p)(q) and (r) of Rules, 2004 and read as under :- 2. Definitions - In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires, "2(p) "output service" means any taxable service provided by the provider of taxable service, to a customer, client, subscriber, policy holder or any other person, as the case may be, and the expressions 'provider' and 'provided' shall be construed accordingly. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts it is hereby clarified that if a person liable for paying service tax does not provide any taxable service or does not manufacture final products, the service for which he is liable to pay service tax shall be deemed to be the 'output service'. 2(q) "person liable for paying service tax" has the meaning as assigned to it in clause (d) of sub-rule (1) of rule 2 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. 2(r) "provider of taxable service" include a person liable for paying service tax." 11. Explanation provided under Rule 2(p) of Rules, 2004 was omitted vide notification dated 19-4-2006. Definition of "Output Services" under Rule....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to pay Service Tax as provider of taxable service in terms of Rule 2(r) of Rules, 2004 and consequently gets covered by 'Output Service' definition contained in Rule 2(p) of Rules, 2004. Similar view was taken by Tribunal's Bench at New Delhi in Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur, 2011 (24) S.T.R. 670. Following judgment of Delhi Bench, Tribunal's Chennai Bench in Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai v. Royal Enfield, 2015 (37) S.T.R. 826 has also taken same view. 15. Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Mumbai & Thane-II, 2015 (37) S.T.R. 570, also had an occasion to look into effect of deletion of Explanation w.e.f. 19-4-2006 and in Paras 5.2 and 5.3 of judgment it has said as under :- "5.2 Thus, the only change in the legal provision is the omission of Explanation under rule 2(p). An Explanation only clarifies the position. By omission of the Explanation, the meaning does not undergo any change. Therefore, both prior to 19-4-2006, as also w.e.f. 19-4-2006, the meaning of the expression "output service", "provider of taxable service" and "person liable for paying service tax" remain the same. Since in the case of insuranc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."."                          (emphasis added) 16. Ahmedabad Bench of Tribunal in Panchmahal Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Vadodara, 2014 (34) S.T.R. 351, has also taken same view and observed that prior to 1-3-2008 there was no bar for such utilization and Assessee could have utilized Cenvat credit given to them for payment of 'Service Tax' on GTA service. It followed Delhi High Court judgment in CST v. Hero Honda Motors Limited, 2013 (29) S.T.R. 358, Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment in CCE v. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Limited, 2012 (25) S.T.R. 129 and Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment in CCE v. Auro Spinning Mills, 2012 (279) E.L.T. 349. 17. On behalf of Revenue reliance has been placed on Gimatex Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Nagpur, 2012 (25) S.T.R. 456, Tribunal's Mumbai Bench judgment rendered by a Single member wherein dispute relates to period of April, 2007 to March, 2008. It has relied on Tribunal's Bangalore Bench decision in ITC v. Commissioner, 2011 (23) S.T.R. 41 and Iswari Spinning Mi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y freight either himself or through his agent for the transportation of such goods by road in a goods carriage : Provided that when such person is located in a non-taxable territory, the provider of such service shall be liable to pay service tax. (C) In relation to service provided or agreed to be provided by way of sponsorship to anybody corporate or partnership firm located in the taxable territory, the recipient of such service; (D) In relation to service provided or agreed to be provided by, - (I) an arbitral tribunal, or (II) an individual advocate or a firm of advocates by way of legal services, to any business entity located in the taxable territory, the recipient of such service; (E) In relation to support services provided or agreed to be provided by Government or local authority except, - (EE) In relation to service provided or agreed to be provided by a director of a company to the said company, the recipient of such service," (a) renting of immovable prope....