Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Pushpaman Forgings vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai on 19 June, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I Appeal No. ST/127/07 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. SRK/16/RGD/2007 dated 19.7.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Mumbai-II). For approval and signature: Honble Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) 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 Pushpaman Forgings Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Respondent Appearance:
Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate for Appellant Shri V.K. Agarwal, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for Respondent CORAM:
SHRI P.R. CHANDRASEKHARAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing: 19.06.2013 Date of Decision: 19.06.2013 ORDER NO.
Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan The appeal arises against Order-in-Appeal No. SRK/16/RGD/2007 dated 19.7.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Mumbai-II.
2. The facts relevant to the case are as follows: -
The appellant M/s Pushpaman Forgings discharged Service Tax liability on GTA services received by them through CENVAT Credit Account during the period January, 2005 to February, 2006. The department was of the view that since the appellant was a recipient of the service, they have to discharge Service Tax liability through cash and not through CENVAT Credit Account. Accordingly, a demand of Service Tax of Rs.4,68,431/- was confirmed against the appellant towards Service Tax paid through CENVAT Credit Account. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue has already been settled by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. 2012 (25) STR 129 (P&H), Hero Honda Motors Ltd. 2013 (29) STR 358 (Del) and Auro Spinning Mills 2012 (26) STR 413 (HP) and pleads that these decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts have held that in respect of GTA services, the recipient of service can discharge Service Tax liability by availing credit on inputs/ input services/ capital goods even if they are not providing the taxable service. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and appeal be allowed.
4. The learned Addl. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue fairly concedes.
5. In view of the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Delhi and Himachal Pradesh (supra), we hold that the appellant is eligible to avail CENVAT Credit for GTA service during the impugned period. Accordingly, we allow the appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in Court)
(Anil Choudhary) (P.R. Chandrasekharan)
Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)
Sinha
3