M/S. Ashoka Industries vs C.C.E., Jaipur-Ii

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3. Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes

Appeal No. ST/1564/2011-ST[SM]

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.323(DKV) CE/JPR-I/2011, dated 29.07.2011 passed by the C.C.E.(Appeals), Jaipur-I]

M/s. Ashoka Industries Appellant

Vs.

C.C.E., Jaipur-II Respondent

Appearance

Mr. Mayank Garg, Advocate - For Appellant

Mr. G.R. Singh, DR - For Respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Final Order No.54166/2015, dated 10.08.2015

Per Mr. S.K. Mohanty :

The issues involved in this appeal for consideration are as to whether the liability of service tax in respect of Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service the consignor can be discharged by making payment from the CENVAT credit account by a manufacturer; and that whether the credit taken by the appellant without strength of valid documents is permissible under law. The period involved in this case is January, 2005 to September, 2005.

2. Heard both the parties and perused the records.

3. The facility for utilisation of CENVAT credit was withdrawn by the Central Govt. vide Notification No.10/2008-CE(NT), dated 01.03.2008. In my consider view that the period involved in the present case is prior to the date of Notification, utilisation of CENVAT credit for payment of service tax on GTA service is in conformity with the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Further on a cogent reading of Rules 2(o), 2(q) and 2(r) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, it reveals that a person falling under any one of the seven categories of the GTA services, who is liable to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism, shall be deemed to be considered as output service provided for all purposes under the said Rules. In interpreting the true scope and purport of the CENVAT Credit Rules, this Tribunal in the cases of CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Nahar Exports Ltd. [2008 (9) STR 252 (Tri.-Del)], CCE, Belgaum Vs. Flowserve Microfinish Pumps Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (9) STR 278], Ambattur Petrochem Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur [2008 (9) STR 53 (Tri.-Del)] and Ishwari Spinning Mills Vs. CCE, Madurai [2011 (22) STR 549 (Tri.-Chennai)] have allowed the manufacturer for utilisation of CENVAT credit towards payment of service tax on the GTA services prior to the period 01.03.2008.

4. With regard to the observations of the authorities below that the credit has not been taken based on the valid documents, I find that the service tax in the present case has been paid by the appellant by debiting its CENVAT account. Since the debit of CENVAT account for payment of service tax on GTA service prior to the period 01.03.2008 is permissible to a manufacturer, I am of the opinion that the methodology of taking the credit is in conformity with the statutory provisions.

5. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the impugned order and thus the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.

[Operative portion pronounced in the open court]

(S.K. Mohanty)

Member (Judicial)

Neha

-4-