Reliance Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Ce & St (Ltu), Mumbai

(Arising out Order-in-Appeal No. SB/39/LTU/MUM/2009 dated 21.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service tax (Appeals), Mumbai)

For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

Reliance Industries Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

Commissioner of CE & ST (LTU), Mumbai Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Nikhil Rungta, Advocate for the appellant Shri B.S. Meena, Addl.Comm. (AR) for the respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)

Date of hearing : 29/05/2015 Date of decision : 29/05/2015

O R D E R No:..

Per: M.V. Ravindran:

All these appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No. SB/39/LTU/MUM/2009 dated 21.12.2009.

2. Since these appeals are of the same assessee and arising out of the same impugned order, and also the issue being same, they are being disposed of by a common order.

3. Heard both sides and perused the record.

4. The issue involved in this case is regarding the utilisation of Cenvat credit for discharge of service tax liability on the Goods Transport Agency service during the period May 2007 to September 2008.

5. Ld. counsel was correct in bringing to our notice that the issue is now finally settled by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Panchmahal Steel Ltd. 2015 (34) STR 351 (Tri-LB) wherein one of us was a Member. It is also brought to our notice that Revenue had challenged this Larger Bench decision before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. The Hon'ble High Court by an order dated 18.12.2004 (reported in 2015 (37) STR 965) dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue holding that the Larger Bench decision was correct decision. Their Lordship had recorded as under:-

8.?Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 pertains to Cenvat credit. Sub-rule (1) thereof allows the manufacturer or purchaser of final products or provider of output service to take credit of Cenvat of various duties specified therein. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the said Rules provides that the Cenvat credit may be utilized for payment of various duties specified in clauses (a) to (e) thereof; clause (e) pertains to Service Tax on any output service. A combined reading of these statutory provisions would, therefore, establish that though the assessee was liable to pay Service Tax on G.T.A. Service, it could have utilized Cenvat credit for the purpose of paying such duty. In view of the decisions of Punjab and Haryana High Court and Delhi High Court noted above, we do not find any error in the view of the Tribunal. Tax Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

6. As law is now settled for the material period in question, we find that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and we do so.

7. The impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any.

(Operative part pronounced in Court)

(P.S. Pruthi) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

//SR

3