9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yarn. They pay service tax on "Goods Transport Agency's Service" received in connection with inward movement of their inputs. They also pay similar tax on similar service received in connection with outward movement of their final product. In both the instances, they are service recipients. During the period of dispute (Oct. '05 to March '06), for payment of this tax, they utilized credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods as also credit of service tax paid on input service. This was objected to by the department. Both the lower authorities sustained this, objection and demanded Rs. 2,65,311/- equivalent to the credit found to have been 'wrongly' utilized for the above period. The penalty imposed on the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med to be the out put service." It has been pointed out by learned counsel that the Explanation was omitted on 19-04-2006 and the same was in force during the period of dispute. In the present case, the appellants were only receiving taxable services and not providing any, but they were discharging Service Tax liability in respect of the "Goods Transport Agency's Service" received for the inward and outward movement of goods. As per the above Explanation, where a person liable for paying Service Tax does not provide any taxable service, the service for which he is liable to pay Service Tax shall be deemed to be 'out put service'. Accordingly, the "Goods Transport Agency's Service" on which the appellants paid Service Tax sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CESTAT-DEL] cited by learned counsel. Learned SDR has particularly retied on a circular dated 3-10-2005 of the Board. A part of this circular is seen to have been reproduced in the impugned order. This is a clarification to the effect that, under the provisions of Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, a person discharging Service Tax liability is neither the provider of output service nor the manufacturer of final product as required under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. This clarification did not take into account the above Explanation and cannot hold good during the currency of the Explanation. 5. In the result, the impugned order disallowing the credit is set aside and this appeal is allowed." 3. Following the above precedent, J set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
