Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai Ii vs Gtl Infrastructure Ltd on 1 August, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No.
ST/614/12 & ST/CO/131/12
(Arising out Order-in-Original No. 66/ST-II/WLH/2012 dated 30.05.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Service tax, Mumbai II)
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri Devender Singh, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
Commissioner of Service tax, Mumbai II
Appellant
Vs.
GTL Infrastructure Ltd.
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri A.B. Kulgod, AC (AR) for the appellant Shri Mehul Jinani, CA for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 01-08-2016 Date of decision : 01-08-2016 O R D E R No: ..
Per: M.V. Ravindran This appeal is filed by the revenue against Order-in-Original No. 66/ST-II/WLH/2012 dated 30.05.2012. The respondent has also filed a cross objection. Appeal as well as cross objection are disposed of by a common order.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the demand of duty from the respondent on the ground that they had debited the cenvat account for the discharge of the service tax liability on the service received by them from foreign banks for raising external commercial borrowing in the form of foreign currency convertible bonds. The entire service tax liability was discharged by the respondent under reverse charge mechanism. They discharged the tax liability by utilising the cenvat credit availability to them on the capital goods purchased and on which central excise duty was paid.
4. After considering the submission made by both sides, we find that the issue is no more res integra wherein the Hon'ble High Court and Tribunal has clearly held that there is no restriction under Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 2(p), (q) and (r) and liability under reverse charge mechanism can be discharged by utilising of cenvat credit. The issue has been decided by following case laws:-
* HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 2014-TIOL-1405-CESTAT-MUM * Aquapharma Chemicals P. Ltd. 2015-TIOL-2776-CESTAT-MUM * Hyundai Motors India Ltd. 2015-TIOL-1358-CESTAT-MAD * Hero Honda Motors Ltd. 2013 (29) STR 358 (Del) * Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. 2012 (25) STR 129 (P&H) * Panchmahal Steel Ltd. 2014 (34) STR 351 (Tri-LB) * Commissioner vs. Panchmahal Steel Ltd. 2015 (37) STR 965 (Guj.)
5. On perusal of the said case laws and the issue involved in this case, we are convinced that the adjudicating authority was correct in coming to a conclusion that the no demands can be raised on the appellant for utilising the cenvat credit to discharge the service tax liability under reverse charge mechanism.
6. Revenues appeal is devoid of merits. We uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal filed by the revenue. (Operative part pronounced in Court) (Devender Singh) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) //SR
- 4 -
ST/614/12