2019 (6) TMI 1361 - HC - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - input services - Goods Transport Agency service - time limitation - reverse charge mechanism - merger of service tax and Cenvat credit as on 30/12/2004 - HELD THAT:- Tribunal, relied on decisions of Delhi High Court in the cases of CST Vs. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. [2012 (12) TMI 734 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and CC Vs. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. [2010 (5) TMI 608 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] to allow the claim. In both the above cases, the court after placing reliance upon Rule 3(4)(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 held that the Cenvat credit available could be utilised by the respondent to discharge its obligation of payment of service tax on GTA service on reverse charge mechanism.

No distinguishing features in fact or in law are brought to our notice which would justify our taking a different view. The question of law as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law.

Extended period of limitation - demand of the revenue is time barred - HELD THAT:- On introduction of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the respondent by its letter dtd.19/01/2005 brought to the notice of the authorities that in view of the new Rules, it is permitted to utilise the service tax credit for payment of excise duty on manufactured goods and vice-versa.

Tribunal found that the Revenue was aware that the respondent was taking the merged credit in 2004, in view of intimation dtd.19/01/2005. Thus, the Tribunal held that the show-cause notice is time barred and allowed the respondent's appeal before it.

This decision of the Tribunal is one on facts and nothing has been shown to us to indicate that the same is perverse. - substantial question of law. - appeal dismissed.