Appeal No. S/PD/110/08 and S/127/08 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 18/2007-ST Dated 17.12.2007 Passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals), Coimbatore). Case: Alstom Projects India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C. Ex., Coimbatore. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | Appeal No. S/PD/110/08 and S/127/08 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 18/2007-ST Dated 17.12.2007 Passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals), Coimbatore) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Radhika Chandrasekar, Adv. And For Respondents: V.V. Hariharan, JCDR |
| Judges | P.G. Chacko, Member (J) |
| Issue | Finance Act, 1994 - Sections 73, 75, 76; Finance Act, 2008; CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Rule 2 |
| Citation | 2008 (15) STJ 224 (CESTAT-Chennai), 2008 (12) STR 23 (Tri - Chennai), 2009 (19) STT 149 |
| Judgement Date | July 04, 2008 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
P.G. Chacko, Member (J), (South Zonal Bench At Chennai)
-
After examining the records and hearing both sides, I am of the view that the appeal itself requires to be disposed of summarily. Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit, I take up the appeal.
-
The appellants are engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of excisable goods. During the period Jan'05 to March'07, they availed CENVAT credit of the service tax paid on certain input services and utilized the same for payment of service tax on "Goods Transport Agency's Service" (GTA Service, for short) received by them. This credit was to the extent of Rs. 62,812/-. The department issued a show-cause notice to them proposing to recover the above amount with interest as also to impose penalty on them on the ground that input service tax was not available to be utilized for payment of service tax on GTA Service, which was also an 'input service'. The party contested the proposals by submitting that, by virtue of the Explanation to the definition of "output service" given under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, they were entitled to treat GTA Service as an 'output service'. This plea was repelled and the original authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 62,812/- against the appellants under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 with interest under Section 75 of the Act and imposed on them a penalty equal to tax under Section 76 of the Act. The appeal filed by the party against the decision of the adjudicating authority did not succeed. Hence the present appeal.
-
After considering the arguments of both sides, I have not found good case for the appellants against the demand of service tax of Rs. 62,812/- with interest. This tax with interest has already been paid by the party. However, the present appeal contains certain grounds against the demand. None of these grounds has been found to be sustainable. The appellants are claiming under the aforesaid Explanation, which reads as follows:
Explanation:- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that if a person liable for paying service tax does not provide any taxable service or does not manufacture final products, the service for which he is liable to pay service tax shall be deemed to be the output service.
As the appellants were, admittedly, engaged in the manufacture of goods during the material period, they were not entitled to treat GTA service as an output service in terms of the above Expatriation. In other words, input...
To continue reading
Request your trial