TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds Transport Agency s Service (GTA service for short) received in connection with inward movement on their inputs. They also pay similar tax on similar service received in connection with outward movement of their final products. In both the instances, they are service recipients. During the periods of dispute, which are prior to 19.4.2006, the appellants utilized credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods as also credit on service tax paid on input service, for payment of duty of excise on final products as also for payment of service on GTA service. The utilization of input-duty credit, capital goods credit and/or input service tax credit for payment of service tax on GTA service was objected to by the department. The original author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... means any taxable service provided by the provider of taxable service, to a customer, client, subscriber, policy-holder or any other person, as the case may be, and the expressions provider and provided shall be construed accordingly. 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 . It has been pointed out by learned counsel that the Explanation was omitted on 19.4.2006 and the same was in force during the period of dispute. In the present case, the appellants were only receiving taxable servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove order of this Bench (Final Order No. 262/07 dated 20.3.2007) is the same as what has already been discussed earlier in this order. Even without reference to the Explanation, a learned Single Member of the Tribunal at Delhi allowed similar credit to the assessee in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. M/s. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. in Appeal No. 22/2007-NB(SM) dated 7.3.2007 [2007-TIOL-555-CESTAT-DEL] cited by learned counsel. Learned SDR has particularly relied on a Circular dated 3.10.2005 of the Board. A part of this circular is seen to have been reproduced in the impugned order. This is a clarification to the effect that, under the provisions of Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, a person dischargin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
