TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 826X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ENVAT Credit account or by cash was made by an explanation inserted on 18.04.2006 - As regards the amount of tax liability post 18.04.2006, which the appellant assessee should have paid through PLA or cash, we do find that appellant has been keeping the department informed about the discharge of tax liability in their returns. It cannot be said that appellant had suppressed or misstated any information or evaded tax. Having debited the amount in CENVAT Credit, the intention of the assessee is very clear that he wanted to discharge the service tax. This being the factual position, we hold that the demand of service tax liability under GTA services post 18.04.2006 is hit by limitation. Management Consultancy Services and Export Sales Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adjudicating authority was correct in coming to such a conclusion and we do not find any reason to interfere in reasoned findings given by him to drop the demands raised on this account. In short, Revenue s appeal is devoid of merits and stands rejected. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - ST/303/2009, ST/420/2009 - A/30051–30052/2019 - Dated:- 16-1-2019 - Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And Mr. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri B. Venugopal, Advocate for the Appellant Assessee. Shri A.V.L.N. Chary, Superintendent/AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran 1. These two appeals are filed by Revenue as well as assessee against the same Order-in-Original No. 01/2009 (ST)-Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Ld. Counsel after taking the bench through the case records submits that as regards the demand of Goods Transport Agency, the question is that appellant used the CENVAT Credit for discharge of GTA services and the tax liability which according to Revenue, is incorrect. It is his submission that as regards the tax on GTA services prior to 18.04.2006, utilisation of CENVAT Credit for discharge of service tax liability was accepted and is a settled law. Post 18.04.2006, he submits that they are discharging the service tax liability with the authorities through CENVAT Credits and hence Department was aware of the fact, accordingly extended period cannot be invoked, for such demand. It is his further submission that as regards the Management ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally incorrect inasmuch the entire operations of the appellant (DTA to EOU) is under one name i.e. Parker Markwel Industries. Hence, there is no service rendered by DTA unit to any other person, it is a self service. For this proposition, he relies upon the decision of Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner vs. Larsen Toubro Ltd. [2016(44)S.T.R. 391 (Guj.)] and Tribunal s decision in the case of Precot Mills Limited vs. CCE, Tirupati [2006(2)S.T.R. 495 (Tri.-Bang.)] and Indian Oil Corporation vs. CCE, Patna [2007(8)S.T.R. 527 (Tri.-Kolkata)] and CCE Hyderabad vs. Universal Travels [20109(18)S.T.R. 157 (Tri.-Bang.)]. 5. Ld. DR while opposing the submissions made by Ld. Counsel submits that service tax liability on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded as job charges. 7. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 8. On perusal of records, we find that both sides are not disputing the facts as recorded herein above, are accepted by both sides being correct. 9. As regards the service tax liability on GTA services for the period in question, we find that the appellant has accepted the liability and discharged the same through CENVAT Credit available to him in the records. It is also undisputed that the returns were filed by the appellant with the authorities indicate such debits made towards service tax liability on GTA services. As was the law during the relevant period i.e. upto 18.04.2006, service tax liability on GTA service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04.2006, no service tax liability arises on the recipient of services in India as provisions of Section 66A were brought into statute w.e.f. 18.4.2006. In view of this, the demands raised on the appellant for the period pre 18.04.2006 is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. For the demand of the tax liability post 18.4.2006, it is seen from the records that appellant is a manufacturer of various excisable products and have availed the expert knowledge of Management Consultancy and paid export sales commission to various agents for marketing their goods abroad. These two services are directly related to the manufacture and clearance of the products, hence appellant can avail the CENVAT Credit of the service tax paid on these services, e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
