Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (2) TMI 461

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 227, 248-249, 254-255, 259, 290/2008, 2-4/2009, 8, 19, 21-23, 44, 35-37, 75-94, 96-97, 138, 143, 181, 191, 199, 214, 206, 267-268, 276, 278-279, 285, 459, 532-533, 549, 613/2009 and 142, 213, 331, 402/2010 - 226-275/2011 - Dated:- 4-2-2011 - Dr Chittaranjan Satapathy, J. For Appellants: Shri M Karthikeyan, M V Raman, J Shankar Raman, Joseph Prabhakar, L Maithili and M N Bharathi, V Balasubramanian, R Srinivasan, S Kandasamy, M Saravanan and V Deivasigamani, Consultants. For Respondents: Shri V V Hariharan, Jt. CDR Per: Chittaranjan Satapathy: 2. In respect of Appeal at Sl. No. 49 above, I find that the lower appellate authority has passed the impugned order dismissing the appeal by refusing to condone the delay in filing t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e cases are taken up now for hearing and disposal, with the consent of both sides, in the light of the decision dated 8-9-2010 of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal headed by the Hon'ble President in the case of CCE, Belgaum v. M/s. Shri Tubes Steels Pvt. Ltd. which has been recently reported this week in 2011-TIOL-147-CESTAT-BANG. I find that in paragraph 12 of the said decision in the case of Shri Tubes Steels (supra), the Tribunal Bench headed by the Hon'ble President has observed as follows :- "Taking into consideration the question formulated for recording difference of opinion in Panchamahal Steel Ltd. case and applying the law laid down by the Apex court and followed by the Larger Bench, it is difficult to accept the conte .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Where a person provides any taxable service or manufactures final product, he can utilize the Cenvat credit in accordance with the Rules. Cenvat credit, as defined under Rule 3(1} includes duties, tax and cess as enumerated in various clauses. The service tax liable under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994, can also be taken as credit by a manufacturer or producer of final product or a provider of taxable service. On a plain reading of the explanation, it would appear that, if a person is either a manufacturer or a provider of taxable service, there would be no need for making a provision for such a person by way of a deeming fiction, as is sought to be done under the explanation, because, such a taxable service provider or a manufacturer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 891-CESTAT-MAD, Pallipalayam Spinners Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Salem reported in - 2007-TIOL-2136-CESTAT-MAD and Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. CCE, C ST reported in - 2007-TIOL-1828-CESTAT-KOL. The last decision was also followed in Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Raigad reported in - 2008-TIOL-657-CESTAT-MUM. Undisputedly, all these cases related to the period prior to 19-4-2006. In other words, as far as the issue in question is concerned to the extent it related to the period prior to 19-4-2006, the consistent view taken by the Tribunal is that in view of the explanation clause the assessee would be entitled to avail the benefit of such service tax in order to claim the Cenvat Credit thereof. In view of the detailed reasoning given in Naha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2(p) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on 19-4-2006, the manufacturer-assessees should be deemed as service providers in view of the legal provision imposing the burden of paying service tax on them for GTA service received by them, till the law was further amended on 1-3-2008. This contention is opposed by the Department. I find that all the decisions which are in favour of the assessee- appellants/respondents have held them to be service providers for the period upto 18-4-2006 solely on the ground of the Explanation to the definition of output service under Rule 2(p). Hence, with the deletion of the Explanation with effect from 19-4-2006, the benefit of these decisions cannot be extended to them for the period from 19-4-2006. As far as th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates