TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such utilization of CENVAT account under Rule 3(4)(e) of the CCR. There is no bar in taking credit of service tax paid on GTA service and reutilizing the same for payment of service tax - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/168/2009-DB - Final Order No. 21180/2018 - Dated:- 16-8-2018 - HON'BLE MR. S. S. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER And HON'BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER Ms. Neetu James, Advocate For the Appellant Shri K. Murali, Superintendent ( AR ) For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 04/12/2008 passed by the Commissioner whereby the Commissioner has confirmed the interest of ₹ 12,41,715/- and also imposed pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the departmental officers and the amounts paid by the assessee is regularized. On these allegations, a show-cause notice dt. 27/05/2008 was issued to the appellant demanding interest and penalty. After following the due process, the Commissioner confirmed the demand with regard to interest and penalty. 3. Heard both the parties and perused records. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable as the same is contrary to the binding judicial precedent on the same issue. She further submitted that from a combined reading of the definition of output service and person liable for paying service tax , it is clear that the statute itself deems that GTA service as an output service in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ii. UOI Vs. Flowserve Microfinish Valves Pvt. Ltd. [2014(33) STR 634 (Kar.)] iv. CCE, Salem Vs. Cheran Spinners Ltd. [2014(33) STR 148 (Mad.)] v. Commissioner Vs. Hero Honda Motors Ltd.[2013(29) STR 358 (Del.)] vi. Commissioner Vs. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. [2012(25) STR 129 (P H)] vii. Commissioner Vs. Auro Spinning Mills [2012(26) STR 413 (HP)] 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both parties and perusal of the material on records, we find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Panchmahal Steel Ltd. cited supra wherein the Larger Bench has observed in paras 3 to 5 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Service Tax was paid out of the Cenvat credit on GTA services and, hence, the respondents were well within their right to utilize the Cenvat credit for the purpose of payment of Service Tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have rightly held that the respondents were entitled to pay the Service Tax from the Cenvat credit. 5. We find that the other Hon ble High Courts have also taken the same view. In view of the above, the question referred to is answered in favour of the assessee. 7. Further we find that the Revenue has taken this case to the High Court of Gujarat and the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and has observed in para 8 as under:- 8 Rule 3 of the Cenvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
