TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1131
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, for discharge of tax liability in respect of GTA availed for outward transportation for the period January 2005 to September 2008. It appeared to the department that such utilization of cenvat credit was irregular since the service provided by the GTA for outward transportation does not become an output service for consignor or consignee in terms of Rule 2(p) and 2 (r) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In the proceedings initiated against the appellant vide impugned order dt. 21.12.2009, the jurisdictional Commissioner confirmed demand of service tax of with interest for the period January 2005 to September 2008 and also imposed penalty under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Hence this appeal. 2. Today, when the matter came u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... they were under bonafide belief that the credit availed could be utilized for discharging duty liability in the manner that they did for the entire period even after 1.3.2008 and hence there was no case for imposition of penalties on the appellant. 5. On the other hand, Ld. A.R Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy takes us to para -14 of the impugned order to emphasis that the Explanation to Rule 2 (p) of the Rules which clarified that 'even if a person liable for paying service tax does not provide 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', was omitted by Notification No.8/2006-CE (NT) dt. 19.4.2006. Ld. A.R further placed reliance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es/capital gods for providing taxable services by virtue of deeming legal fiction?". The Larger Bench of the Tribunal relying upon the High Court judgements of Punjab & Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Delhi High Court referred to in para-3 of that decision, has held that there is no bar for such utilization prior to 1.3.2008. We further find that said Larger Bench decision has been upheld by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court as reported in 2015 (37) STR 965 (Guj.). We find that affirmation of Larger Bench decision has been done on 18.12.2014 after the Madras High Court judgement of 11-12-2013 in Iswari Spinning Mills case and hence we intend to follow the ratio laid down in the later High Court judgement. 7. Viewed in this factual matrix, w....