2011 (8) TMI 265 - AT - Service Tax

Utilisation of cenvat credit - The appellants are availing the services of goods transport agency - whether such utilisation of Cenvat credit for payment of Service Tax on the GTA services so received by the appellants is according to the law or the appellants were required to pay such Service Tax in cash - As per the case of CCE Chandigarh vs. Nahar Industries Enterprises Ltd. reported in 2007 -TMI - 4330 - CESTAT NEW DELHI it was held that Cenvat credit can be utilised towards payment of Service Tax in respect of services received from Goods Transport Agency inasmuch as by a deemed fiction of law service recipient is held to be output service provider - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules for payment of Service Tax on GTA services received.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi dealt with the issue of whether the utilization of Cenvat credit for the payment of Service Tax on services received from a goods transport agency (GTA) was in accordance with the law. The appellants were availing GTA services and paying Service Tax as recipients, utilizing Cenvat credit of duty paid on inputs, capital goods, and Service Tax on input services. The question at hand was whether such utilization of Cenvat credit for paying Service Tax on GTA services was permissible under the law, or if the appellants were required to pay the Service Tax in cash. The lower authorities had held that the services received from GTA could not be considered as output services, thereby disallowing the utilization of Cenvat credit for Service Tax payment.

Under Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, Cenvat credit could be utilized for the payment of Service Tax on any output services. The key issue was whether the appellants could be deemed as providers of output services. The definition of output services under Rule 2(p) of the Rules includes any taxable service provided by the provider of taxable service, with the provider of taxable service defined to include a person liable for paying Service Tax. As the appellants were liable to pay Service Tax as recipients of services from GTA, they could be deemed as providers of taxable service, making the service provided by them an output service under the Rules.

The Tribunal referred to various decisions, including Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur vs. Visaka Industries Ltd. and CCE, Chandigarh vs. Nahar Industries Enterprises Ltd., which confirmed that the payment of Service Tax on GTA services through Cenvat Credit was appropriate. These decisions were upheld by the High Court as well. The Tribunal also cited recent cases like M/s. Dhillon Kool Drinks & Beverages Ltd. vs. CCE, Jalandhar and M/s. National Engineering Indus. Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur, which supported the eligibility of taxpayers to pay tax on GTA services from their Cenvat Credit account.

While the Revenue cited a case where Cenvat Credit was not allowed for payment of Service Tax on GTA services, the Tribunal distinguished it by noting that the appellant in that case was not engaged in manufacturing or providing output services, making them ineligible for Cenvat Credit utilization. Given the precedents and the inapplicability of the Revenue's case to the facts at hand, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals with consequential relief.