Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Dept. Can’t Classify Product as Zarda Scented Tobacco After Repeatedly Approving It As Chewing Tobacco: CESTAT *  Mere Uploading Of GST Order On Portal Is Not “Valid” Service: Tripura HC *  CGST Can Proceed Even If SGST Closed Similar Case Earlier: Delhi HC *  SC upholds 28% GST on online gaming with retrospective effect. *  West Bengal Govt cuts E-way Bill Threshold limit to Rs. 50,000 for intra-state goods movement. *  Criminal Prosecution Under Central Excise Act Can’t Continue After CESTAT Sets Aside Duty Demand on Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Orders for Denial of Personal Hearing; Remands Matter Subject to 10% Deposit *  Ex Parte GST Order: Madras High Court Directs Immediate Removal of Bank/ITC Attachment Upon 25% Deposit *  J.K. Cement Receives GST Demand Order of Rs 8,02,113/- from Ahmedabad Tax Authority *  Delhi Police EOW Busts Alleged Rs. 128 Crore GST Fake Invoice Network. *  REPLY TO SCN CAN’T BE TREATED AS “EMPTY FORMALITY”: ORISSA HIGH COURT QUASHES GST DEMAND OF RS. 57.30 LAKH *  Challenge to CGST Provisions restricting ITC to Bonafide Purchasers : Allahabad HC issues notice *  CBIC Notifies Revised Customs Tariff Values for Edible Oils, Gold, Silver, Brass Scrap and Areca Nuts *  Delhi HC Orders Removal of GST Attachment After Statutory 1 Year Period Expired *  GSTAT Extends Relaxed Appeal Filing Guidelines till December 31, 2026 *  AO fails to Provide Import - Export Data from DGFT to Taxpayer for Reconciliation *  Gold, Silver Imports To Get Costlier As Govt Raises Customs Duty To 10%  *  GSTAT Enables Pre-Payment Access to Document Upload and Checklist for GST Appeal Filing *  GST Portal Restrictions Can’t Override Statute: Gujarat HC Allows Cross-State Transfer Of CGST ITC After Amalgamation *  Centre Revises HS Codes for Large Diameter Steel Pipes Used in Oil & Gas Pipelines *  Customs Duty Liability Arises On Warehouse Clearance Date: Supreme Court *  Government lifts export ban on de-oiled rice bran *  CESTAT Grants 12% Interest on Pre-Deposit for Investigation from Date of Deposit till Refund and Denies Interest on Interest. *  Government Overhauls GST Classification Framework for Non-Alcoholic Beverages; Fruit Juice Drinks, Milk-Based Beverages and Caffeinated Drinks to Attract Revised 5% and 40% GST Rates from May 1, 2026 *  India’s gross GST collections hit a record Rs 2.42 lakh crore in April, up 8.7% *  Customs clearance stalled, revenue hit over MRP dispute *  Shipping Corporation explores Middle East routes as Hormuz tensions disrupt cargo movement *  India, Kenya signs MoU for exchange of pre-arrival customs information *  No demand of Taxes under Reverse Charge if Tax Already Discharged by Service Provider under forward charge *  The India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed "once-in-a-generation" deal that eliminates tariffs on 100% of Indian exports to New Zealand
Subject News *  Consignment Sales Can’t Be Reclassified as Inter-State Sales Based on Pre-Agreement Evidence: CESTAT *  Exporter Can’t Be Denied Advance Authorization Benefit Due To ICEGATE Technical Glitch: Delhi High Court *  No GST Demand For Mere Wrong Set-Off Of IGST Credit Under CGST And SGST Heads: Kerala HC. *  Cenvat Credit Can’t Be Denied on Input Services Having Nexus With Manufacturing Activities: CESTAT *  Pending Proceedings Can’t Survive Without Saving Clause: Calcutta High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 6.28 Crore After Omission of Rule 96(10) *  Madras HC Quashes GST Demands on TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) Bar Licence Fee *  GST Proceedings Cannot Survive Omitted Rule Without Saving Clause: Calcutta HC *  Provisional Release Can’t Be Denied Solely On Dept. Suspicion Of Misclassification And Undervaluation Of Imported Goods: CESTAT *  Businesses Should Not Be Kept Outside GST Regime Without Due Process: Gauhati High Court *  Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Reconsideration of Contractors’ Claim for Additional GST Payment After Tax Rate Hike From 12% to 18% *  S. 108 Statements Can’t Be Sole Basis Without Following Section 138B Procedure: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Frames Key Questions on Mandatory Distribution of ITC U/s 20 CGST Act *  Filing of Annexure-B for Refund Applications involving Accumulated ITC using the offline utility in GST portal: GSTN *  No Service Tax on Parent Company’s Un-Invoiced Cost Allocations Without Actual Service or Consideration: CESTAT  *  Calcutta High Court Upholds GST Classification of Polypropylene Leno Bags as Plastic Products *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  GSTAT Issues Major Bench Allocation Framework; All Appeals to First Go Before Division Bench *  ITC Blocking Without Reasoned Order Violates Rule 86A; Punjab & Haryana HC Directs Release of Credit *  Allahabad HC Refuses Bail to CGST Superintendent In Rs. 70 Lakh Bribery Case *  S.130 Can’t Be Invoked Without Prior Tax Determination U/s 73/74: Allahabad High Court Quashes GST Confiscation Proceedings *  SC grants Bail to Rs 54cr GST case  *  Karnataka HC Sets Aside Duplicate GST Orders, Orders Fresh Hearing on GSTIN Cancellation *  DRC-01 Summary Can’t Replace Mandatory SCN: Gauhati High Court *  Transfer Of Unutilized ITC After Amalgamation - Supreme Court Issues Notice *  PUNJAB & HARYANA HC QUASHES GST CANCELLATION NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE CBIC ENQUIRY REPORT *  LICENSE FEE, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CHARGES NOT INCLUDIBLE IN CUSTOMS VALUE UNLESS THEY ARE A CONDITION OF SALE: CESTAT *  DELHI HC ORDERS REMOVAL OF GST ATTACHMENT AFTER STATUTORY 1 YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED *  CUSTOMS BROKER CAN’T BE FAULTED JUST BECAUSE EXPORTER’S GST REGISTRATION WAS PREVIOUSLY CANCELLED: CESTAT   *  Supreme Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Delhi HC Ruling Holding Real Operator Behind Fake GST Firms Liable As ‘Taxable Person  *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Merely Because DRC-07 Was Not Uploaded On Portal: Bombay High Court  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2014-15/2299

Whether service tax payment for GTA service valid from cenvat credit?

Case:-UNION OF INDIA VS. FLOWSERVE MICROFINISH VALVES PVT. LTD.

Citation:-2014(33) S.T.R. 634 (Kar.)

Brief facts:-The respondent assessee in under Service Tax as well as manufacture of excise goods and since it was found that the credit accumulated for the payment of Service Tax of goods etc. on the ground that the goods transport service cannot be treated as Service Tax as they are providing service to other users and credit had been wrongly availed, the Adjudicating Authority held that the assessee was not entitled to avail Cenvat Credit and accordingly passed the original order on 27-6-2006 to the extent of Rs. 5910 & Rs. 3920. And education cess amount of Rs. 119 & Rs. 2523 utilized towards payment of Service Tax on GRA services by the assessee for the period from Jan., 2005 to sept. 2005, respectively is irregular and confirmed the demand of Service Tax amount of Rs. 5910 & Rs. 3920. And education cess amount of Rs. 119 & Rs. 2523 respectively under sub section (2) of section 73 of the Act and further confirmed the demand of interest at the appropriate rate under section 75 of the act on the above said amount. Being aggrieved by the above orders, the instant appeals were preferred before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority passed a common order holding that the availing of credit on Service Tax on goods transported service paid by the recipient of such service is not available unless the person concerned is also providing some other output services or is manufacturing dutiable goods on which Cenvat Credit taken on input service as well as input goods is available for utilization and there is no one to one correlation between credit availed and utilized and in view of the Circular dated 3-10-2005 issued by the Department C.B.E. & C., does not bar the appellant from availing the credit on good transport input services or on manufactured goods and accordingly allowed the appeals.

Appellant’s contention:-Being aggrieved by the said order, these appeals are preferred by the Revenue contending that the assessee was not entitled to make use of Cenvat credit as rightly held by the Original Authority and the Appellate Authority was not justified in reversing the order passed by the Original Authority. Therefore the order of the Tribunal may be set aside and the order of the Original Authority may be restored.

Respondent’s contention:- The learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued in support of the order passed by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal.

Reasoning of judgement:-We have given careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinized the materials on record.

The fact that the respondent has been assessed both under the Excise Act and the Service Tax is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that in view of the Circular issued by C.B.E. &C, dated 3-10-2005 referred to in order of the Appellate Authority, when the person discharging Service Tax liability is not the provider of output services, such recipient of taxable service even if they discharge their service tax liability under section 68(2) are not entitled to avail credit of the Service Tax paid on taxable services. However, there is no prohibition for utilizing the credit for the payment of Service Tax. Therefore the concurrent finding arrived at by the appellate authority and the Tribunal and in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh vs. M/s Nahar Industries Enterprises Ltd. [2007- TIOL-555-CESTAT-MAD = 2007(7) S.T.R. 569 (Tri.- Chennai)] andThe India Cements Ltd. Vs. CCE, Salem [2007-TIOL-645-CESTAT-MAD = 2007(7) S.T.R. 569 (Tri.-Chennai) wherein similar issue as involved in this case has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

In view of the above, we hold that the order passed by the appellate authority and the Tribunal is justified and in the facts of the case do not give rise to any question of law to be decided in these appeals.

Decision:-Appeals dismissed.
 

Comment:-The substance of the case is that the credit utilisation for payment of service tax for GTA service has been confirmed by the High Court in the case of Nahar Industries Enterprises and The India Cements Ltd. In view of the said decisions, it was concluded that the issue is settled and the appeal filed by the revenue department was dismissed.


Prepared by: - Lovina Surana
 
 

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com