Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai vs M/S. Phills Engineering Corporation on 12 August, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
APPEAL NO. S/ST/309/2009-Mum. In
ST/CO-11/2010-Mum.
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. YDB/69/M-II/2009 Dated 11/09/2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Mumbai Zone-II
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, 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 :
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
:
Appellants
VS
M/s. Phills Engineering Corporation.
Respondents
Appearance
Shri B.P. Pareira, JDR Authorized Representative
Shri G.C. Madhom, Advocate for Respondent
CORAM:
Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Date of decision : 12/08/2010
ORDER NO.
Per : Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Heard both sides.
2. Revenue has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand against the respondent on CENVAT credit utilized for payment of Service Tax on GTA for the period October 2006 to September 2007.
3. The short issue involved in this case is that the respondent utilized the amount lying in their CENVAT credit to pay service tax on GTA during the period October 2006 to September 2007. A show-cause notice was issued demand was confirmed along with interest and penalties and appeal was preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals), who dropped the demand. Following the various decisions of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. India Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE [2007 (7) STR 569 (Tri. Chennai], M/s. RRD Tex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CFE [2007 (8) STR 186], CCE Vs. M/s. Nahar Industrial Enterprises [2007 (7) STR 26], M/s. Ambattur Petrochem Ltd., Vs. CCE, Raipur [2008 (9) STR 53 (Tri.Del.)], CCE Vs. M/s. Floserve Miscrofinish Valves Pvt. Ltd. [2008 (10) STR 21 (Tri.-Cal.], M/s. Palipalayam Spinners Vs. CCE, Salem [2008 (9) STR 544 (Tri.-Chennai)] and CCE Vs. M/s. Saket Oxygen [2009 TIOL 878 CESTAT-De.)]. The Revenue has filed an appeal on the ground that all the cited decisions are involving period prior to April 2006 and from 19.4.2006 the respondent is not entitled to utilized CENVAT credit account for payment of service tax on GTA service hence, they are not applicable to the case of the respondent.
3. Shri Bharat Raichandani the learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that the facility of the utilization of CENVAT credit for payment of service tax on GTA service has been withdrawn by Notification No. 10/2008-C.C.(N.T.), dated 1.3.2008 and prior to 1.3.2008, the decisions of the above cited cases are squarely applicable to the case of the respondent. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned order, and the same is upheld.
4. The learned DR reiterated the grounds of appeal.
5. I have gone through the Notification No. 10/2008-C.C.(N.T.), dated 1.3.2008, prior to that as per the cited decisions above, the respondents were entitled to utilize their CENVAT credit account for payment of service tax on GTA service . Accordingly, I do agree with submissions of the learned Advocate and the reliance of the Commissioner (Appeals) is absolutely correct and there is no ambiguity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the same is upheld as there is no merit in the appeal, the appeal is rejected. Cross-objection is also disposed of in the above manner.
(Pronounced in court) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial) Sm 3