Tax Appeal Nos. 1044 & 1048 of 2013. Case: Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-III Vs Gujarat State Petronet Ltd.. High Court of Gujarat (India)
| Case Number | Tax Appeal Nos. 1044 & 1048 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Y.N. Ravani, Adv. and For Respondents: Sujit Ghosh, Maulik Nanavati, Ms. Kanupriya Bhargava and Ms. Nikita Mehta, Advs. |
| Judges | Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi and Sonia Gokani, JJ. |
| Issue | Finance Act, 1994 - Sections 73, 76, 77, 78, 78(1), 80 |
| Judgement Date | January 09, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Gujarat (India) |
Order:
Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J.
1. Tax Appeals are ADMITTED for consideration for the following substantial questions of law:
(i) Whether Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal committed an error in holding that M/s. GSPL is entitled to CENVAT credit in respect of the services provided by independent service provider in respect of Engineering Consultancy, Inspection Services, ROU/ROW Consultancy, which was paid by M/s. GSPL directly?
(ii) Whether the Tribunal committed an error in entertaining the ground of the respondent M/s. GSPL on such question of CENVAT credit in a Rectification Application and whether the Tribunal can be stated to have corrected the error apparent on the face of record?
To be heard with Tax Appeal Nos. 452, 453 and 454 of 2013.
2. We notice that the appellant-Department has in these appeals also raised additional question with respect to the view of the Tribunal regarding not permitting the extended period of limitation to the Department for recovery of the dues and also of receiving penalties imposed by the Adjudicating Authority. However, for the reasons mentioned hereinafter, we are not inclined to entertain such questions.
3. The respondent-M/s. GSPL engaged contractors for laying down the pipelines for transportation of its gas. Various issues with respect to the credit for input services and capital goods purchased, in the process of executing such contracts, are at issue in this group of appeals. The Commissioner as an Adjudicating Authority held that M/s. GSPL was not entitled to avail credit for such input services and capital goods utilised. The Tribunal substantially confirmed the view of the Commissioner, against which M/s. GSPL preferred appeals which we have admitted. To the limited extent the Tribunal ruled in favour of the respondent-M/s. GSPL, appeals have been preferred by the appellant-Department and we have admitted such appeals also. However, presently we are considering the question whether the Tribunal committed an error in not permitting the extended period of limitation and recovering penalty, and whether such view of the Tribunal has given rise to the substantial question of law.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on this issue. From the order of the Commissioner, we notice that for permitting the extended period of limitation and imposing penalty, he made the following observations:
82.3 Findings: As discussed in foregoing paras, pipes were directly an input for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial