Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Sumeet Industries Ltd vs Commissioner (Appeal) Central Excise on 1 September, 2016
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad -ooOoo- Appeal No. : E/13584/2013 Arising out of OIA--CCEA-SRT-II/SSP-135/2013-14/U/S85-4---FINALORDER dt 24.7.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-SURAT-II M/s Sumeet Industries Ltd - Appellant(s) Vs Commissioner (Appeal) Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-SURAT-II - Respondent(s)
Represented by For Assessee : Shri S Suriyanarayanan, Advocate For Revenue : Shri N Satwani, Authorised Representative For approval and signature :
Dr. D.M. Misra, 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? Yes 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 :
Dr. D.M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Date of Hearing / Decision : 01/09/2016 ORDER No. A/10906 / 2016 dt 1/9/2016 Per : Dr D.M. Misra, Heard both sides and perused the records.
2. This is an appeal filed against OIA--CCEA-SRT-II/SSP-135/2013-14/U/ S85-4---FINALORDER dt 24.7.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-SURAT-II
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz., Polypropylene falling under Chapter Headings 52.02 and 54.07 of CETA, 1985. The appellant had paid Service Tax amounting to Rs 68,231/- during the period of July 2006 to Sept. 2006, on GTA service (Freight Charges) by debiting their Cenvat account instead of making payment by cash or payment through PLA. Demand notice was issued to them on 28.6.2010 for recovery of the said amount along with proposal for of penalty. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed and penalty of equal amount imposed. On Appeal, the Ld Commissioner (Appeal) upheld and rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal.
4. The Ld Advocate for the appellant submits that utilisation of Cenvat Credit in discharging Service Tax on GTA service is settled by the of Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE&C Vs Panchmahal Steel Ltd 2015(37)STR.965 (Guj) by upholding the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Panchmahal Steel Ltd Vs CCE&ST, Vadodara 2014(34)STR.351 (Tri. LB).
5. The Ld AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal).
6. I find that the issue is no more integra and settled by the Gujarat High Court in Panchmahal Steel Ltds case(Supra). Their Lordship observed as under :
8.?Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 pertains to Cenvat credit. Sub-rule (1) thereof allows the manufacturer or purchaser of final products or provider of output service to take credit of Cenvat of various duties specified therein. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the said Rules provides that the Cenvat credit may be utilized for payment of various duties specified in clauses (a) to (e) thereof; clause (e) pertains to Service Tax on any output service. A combined reading of these statutory provisions would, therefore, establish that though the assessee was liable to pay Service Tax on G.T.A. Service, it could have utilized Cenvat credit for the purpose of paying such duty. In view of the decisions of Punjab and Haryana High Court and Delhi High Court noted above, we do not find any error in the view of the Tribunal. Tax Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the impugned order. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. (Operative part pronounced in the Court) (D.M. Misra) Member (Judicial) swami ??
??
??
??
2