Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Umasons Auto Compo Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 29 November, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. I APPEAL No. ST/672/10-Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AGS(224)/205/2010 dated 17.8.2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President ======================================================
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 :
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?
====================================================== Umasons Auto Compo Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Respondent Appearance:
Shri A.P. Kolte, Advocate, for appellant Shri D.D. Joshi, Superintendent (AR), for respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. S.S. Kang, Vice President Date of Hearing: 29.11.2013 Date of Decision: 29.11.2013 ORDER NO Heard both sides.
2. The appellant filed the appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order whereby the demand of service tax was confirmed. The demand is confirmed on the ground that the appellant being recipient of GTA service is liable to pay service tax.
3. The contention of the appellant is that the appellant had paid the service tax to the provider of GTA service and the provider has paid to the Revenue and the appellant has availed credit of the same. As the service tax has already been paid by the provider of GTA service and Revenue is demanding the same tax from the recipient. Therefore, the demand is not sustainable. The appellant also relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Navyug Alloys Pvt. Ltd. vs CCE&C, Vadodara-II reported in 2009 (13) STR 421 (Tri-Ahmd).
4. The Revenue relies upon the findings of the lower authorities and submitted that as per the provisions of the Finance Act, recipient is liable to pay service tax in respect of GTA service and if the same has been paid by the service provider, he can seek refund of the amount.
5. I find that there is no dispute regarding payment of service tax by the provider of GTA service. Once the amount of service tax is accepted by the Revenue from the provider of GTA service, it cannot be again demanded from the recipient of the GTA service. In view of this, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated in Court) (S.S. Kang) Vice President tvu 1 3