Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S M/E Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad on 22 December, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. IV Appeal No. ST/88823/13 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. US/192/RGD/2013 dated 28.6.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II). For approval and signature: Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) ======================================================
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 : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities? ====================================================== M/s M/e Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Respondent Appearance: Shri Mihir Mehta, Advocate for Appellant Shri B.K. Iyer, Supdt. (AR) for Respondent CORAM: SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing: 22.12.2014 Date of Decision: 22.12.2014 ORDER NO. Per: Shri Anil Choudhary
The appellant is a manufacturer of forge and flanges and is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. US/192/RGD/2013 dated 28.6.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II.
2. The brief facts are that the appellant had paid the Service Tax on the services charged for the period from October, 06 to February, 08. The appellant have discharged the Service Tax liability under Goods Transport Agency services as recipient on reverse charge basis by debiting in CENVAT Credit account. The Revenue felt that the appellant should pay the tax under reverse charge basis for Goods Transport Agency in cash and/or by debiting in PLA account. The show-cause notices dated 4.4.2008 and 9.4.2009 covering aforementioned period were issued and the present demands were confirmed vide Order-in-Original dated 8.4.2013, wherein, the demand of Rs.2,84,776/- was confirmed for the period October, 06 to Sept, 07 and Rs.2,02,229/- was confirmed for the period October, 07 to January, 08 and further interest was demanded and equal amount of penalty was levied under Section 76. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who was pleased to drop the penalty relying on the judgment of this Tribunal being Final Order No. A/343/11/SMB/C-IV dated 12.9.2011. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal against confirmation of the demand.
3. The appellant urges that the issue is no longer res integra and same has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. 2012 (25) STR 129 (P&H) and further have been upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. 2013 (29) STR 358 (Del). Further, the ratio upheld by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Vs. Cheran Spinners Ltd. 2014 (33) STR 148 (Mad.) and have been also so upheld by the Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Auro Spinning Mills 2012 (279) ELT 349 (HP). Following the ratio of the ruling of the Hon'ble High Courts, the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Panchmahal Steel Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara 2014 (34) STR 351 (Tri.-LB) and also so held in the appellants own case reported in 2013 (31) STR 375(Tri-Mum). In all these rulings, it has been held that Service Tax paid out of CENVAT Credit on Goods Transport Agency services is correct as assessee were entitled to utilize its CENVAT Credit for the purpose of payment of Service Tax and/or excise duty. Reference was further made by the learned Counsel to para 2.4.2 of CBE&C Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions, according to which there is no legal bar of the utilization of CENVAT Credit for the purpose of payment of Service Tax on Goods Transport Agency service. Accordingly, the appellant prays for allowing the appeal.
4. The learned AR relies on the impugned order.
5. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the issue s squarely covered on all fours by the above mentioned rulings of the Hon'ble High Courts and Larger Bench of this Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside with consequential benefit, if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in Court) (Anil Choudhary) Member (Judicial) Sinha 1