Departmental appeal against a CESTAT order upholding findings that the respondent was exempt from service tax on GTA services to body corporates under Notification 30/2012 and that its CENVAT credit was admissible. The High Court found no perversity in the findings and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~4
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST DELHI III
.....Appellant
Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC along with Mr. Ritwik Saha, Mr. Raghav Bakshi and Mr. Umar Mishra, Advs.
versus
MS CHETAK LOGISTICS LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kunal Kapoor and Ms. Purvi Sinha, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
1 CESTAT
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/09/2024 at 12:42:27
“8. The Commissioner also examined the tax payment certificate issued by the “body corporates” clients of the respondent showing the service tax amount paid by them during the financial years 201314 and 2014-15. After examination of the same, the Commissioner observed that all the aforesaid clients were covered under the category of “body corporates” as mentioned in clause (e) of the Notification dated 20.06.2012 and the respondent was not liable to pay service tax on the GTA services rendered to these clients. The Commissioner ultimately held that the demand raised under the category of GTA services in the show cause notices were not sustainable and dropped the said demand made in the first show cause notice and the second show cause notice.”
3. In paragraph 9 of the impugned order, the issue of CENVAT credit has been answered in the following terms:-
“9. The Commissioner thereafter examined whether the CENVAT credit availed by the respondent for the period 2013-14 and 2014-15 was admissible to the respondent or not. In this connection, after examination of the relevant Rules and the facts stated by the respondent, the Commissioner observed as follows:
“5.2.5 I find that the during adjudication proceedings, Noticee have submitted the details and sample copies of invoices on the strength of which they availed CENVAT credit during FY 2013-14 and 2014-15. They availed input credit on Warehousing Services, Air Transportation and Rail Transportation services which is in accordance with Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and not related with Goods Transport Operator by Road services. Thus, CENVAT credit is admissible to them and it can be utilized against the payment of service tax.
Noticee have submitted the details of CENVAT credit availed and utilized by them for payment of service tax during FY 2013-14 and 2014-15, which is approximate to the value shown in the service tax return. A detailed chart of the value of CENVAT credit submitted by the Noticee viz. a .viz their respective value as shown in the Service Tax Return is as given below:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Accordingly, I hold that during FY 2013-14 and FY 201415, the CENVAT credit availed by the Noticee is admissible to them”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/09/2024 at 12:42:27
consideration, we find that the appeal failed to raise any dispute in respect of the findings which were rendered by the Commissioner with regard to the applicability of Clause (e) of the Notification 30/2012 dated 20 June 2012.
“14. In the ground of appeal only general averments have been made without pointing out any specific perversity in the impugned order. The findings recorded by the Commissioner are based on the evidence produced by the respondent. Learned authorized representative appearing for the department has also not been able to point out any specific error that may have been committed by the Commissioner while passing the impugned order.”
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
SEPTEMBER 09, 2024 / RW
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/09/2024 at 12:42:27
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the exemption under clause (e) of Notification 30/2012 applied to GTA services rendered to body corporate clients.
Whether the CENVAT credit availed for FY 2013-14 and 2014-15 was admissible.
Whether the CESTAT's affirmation of the Commissioner's findings disclosed any perversity warranting interference.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CGST DELHI III
MS CHETAK LOGISTICS LIMITED
Yashwant Varma
Ravinder Dudeja
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal in a service tax matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
