CESTAT, NEW DELHI BENCH
Mittal Pigments (P.) Ltd.
Commissioner of Central Excise
FINAL ORDER NO. 1401 OF 2012 – SM (BR)
Excise Appeal No. 1568 of 2010-SM
September 21, 2012
1. Credit of Rs. 1,30,452 stands denied to the appellant, who is a manufacturer of zinc oxide, lead oxide, antimony oxide, lead ingots etc. on the ground that the same has been availed on the basis of invoices issued by the consignment agent, for supply of raw material. The said credit relates to the service tax paid on GTA services by the consignment agent. The lower authority has observed that the consignment agent, who has paid the service tax in respect of transportation of the goods was not entitled to avail the Cenvat credit of inasmuch as he himself was not entitled to avail the credit, he could not have passed such credit to the buyers of the inputs.
2. I find that the issue as to whether the service tax paid on GTA services for outward transportation of the goods is admissible as credit are not stands settled by the Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE & ST v. ABB Ltd.  32 STT 141, subsequently confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. In any case, I find that there are series of decisions covering the disputed issues in favour of the appellant. It was held in the case of Anmol Bakers (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [Final Order No. 297/2010-EX (PB), dated 9-4-2010] that the invoices issued by the consignment agents are proper documents for the purpose of availment of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on GTA services by the consignment agent. Board’s Circular No. 97/8/07-ST dated 23-8-2007 was considered. Further in the case of Kushboo Plastics (P.) Ltd. v. CCE 2002 (149) ELT 694 (Tri.-Delhi), it was held that credit is admissible on the basis of invoices issued by the consignment agent who are registered as a dealer. Clarification issued by the Jaipur Commissionerate, which was based on the Chief Commissioner’s letter dated 26.5.2000 was taken into consideration. Similarly in the case of Pragati Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CCE 2006 (205) ELT 662 (Tri.-Delhi), the disputed issue was resolved in favour of the assessee. Tribunal’s decision in the case of Rajasthan Synthetic Industries Ltd. v. CCE 2003 (162) ELT 240 (Tri.-Delhi) is also to the same effect.
3. In view of the above, I find that the issue stands covered by various precedent decisions of the Tribunal. Accordingly I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.