Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... vs M/S. Echjay Industries Pvt. Limited on 30 December, 2014
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad Appeal No. : E/1382,1383/2008 (Arising out of OIA-215/2008/COMMR-A/RAJ dated 08.08.2008, Passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Customs, Rajkot) Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Rajkot : Appellant (s) vs. M/s. Echjay Industries Pvt. Limited : Respondent (s)
Represented by For Revenue : Shri Anil Gidwani, A.R. For Assessee : Shri R. Subramanya, Advocate For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing / Decision : 30.12.2014 ORDER No. A/12340-12341/2014 Dated 30.12.2014 Per : Mr. P.K. Das;
Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that the Revenue also filed Appeal No. E/1383/2008 against the impugned order which was not listed today. Upon the direction from the bench, the appeal No. E/1383/2008 would be treated as listed in the days list. These appeals filed by the Revenue are against a common order and, therefore, both are taken up together for disposal.
2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods classifiable under Chapter Heading 73, 84 and 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are also registered with the Service Tax authorities and paying service Tax on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) Services. The issue involved in this case is whether the respondent availed cenvat credit can be utilised for payment of service Tax on GTA services. Revenue is of the view that respondents are not eligible to utilise cenvat credit for payment of Service Tax on GTA services. Adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings initiated under the show cause notices. Revenue filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) uphold the adjudication order to the extent utilisation of cenvat credit for payment of service Tax on GTA services, for the period Jan 2005 to 18.4.2006. But he set-aside the adjudication order to the extent dropping of demand of service tax on Goods Transport Agency services from 19.4.2006 to August 2006. Revenue filed these appeals against the impugned order in respect of upholding the adjudication order to the extent of utilisation of cenvat credit for the period January 2005 to 18.4.2006.
4. I find that this issue is already covered by the decisions of the Tribunal as under :-
(a) CCE & ST, Hyderabad vs. Aster Teleservices Pvt. Limited 2013 (29) STR 475 (Tri. Bang.)
(b) Uni Deritend Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise - 2012 (25) STR 475 (Tri. Mum.)
5. The above decisions of the Tribunal were passed by following the case of Shri Tubes and Steels Pvt. Limited 2011 (21) STR 370 (Tri. Bang.), held that appellants are entitled to pay service tax on Goods Transport Agency service through cenvat credit for the period 19.4.2006. In the present case, the period of dispute is prior to 19.4.2006.
5. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Accordingly, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court) (P.K. Das) Member (Judicial) ..KL 3