TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2016 - Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri R.V. Shetty, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Ashutosh Nath, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Raju The appellant, M/s Tytan Organics Pvt. Ltd., availed services of Goods Transport Operator. During the period 1.6.2005 to 13.7.2006, the appellant paid the Service Tax on availing of the Goods Transport Operator services on reverse charge basis by using CENVAT Credit. A notice was issued to the appellant seeking to deny the use of CENVAT Credit for the payment of Service Tax on Goods Transport Operator Services on reverse charge basis. The demand was confirmed by both the lower authorities. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that at the material time, the definiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri-Bang). 3. Learned AR relied on the decision of ITC Ltd. 2011 (23) STR 41 (Tri-Bang), Alstom Projects India Ltd. 2008 (12) STR 23 (Tri-Chennai), Echjay Forgings Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (31) STR 375 (Tri-Mum) Santozen Exports 2009 (240) ELT 530 (Tri-Mum). 4. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that there are decisions both sides. Rule 2(p) of the Cenvat Credit Rules at the material time 1.6.2005 to 18.4.2006 read as under: - (p) output service means any taxable service provided by the provider of taxable service, to a customer, client, subscriber, policy holder of any other person, as the case may be, and the expressions provider and provided shall be construed accordingly; Explanation: - For the removal of doubt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able to be utilized for payment of service tax on GTA Service, which was also an input service. The ld. counsel has pointed out that the above Explanation was deleted by the Central Government by Notification No. 8/06-C.E. (N.T.) dated 19-4-06. This amendment, however, does not advance the appellants case any further inasmuch as, with the deletion of the above Explanation, GTA Service remains as an input service only. With reference to the reliance placed by the appellants on the amendment of Rule 2(b) (sic) by the Finance Act, 2008, the ld. counsel submits that the appellants do not propose to press this ground. 4. The ld. counsel has also relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal :- (1) Commissioner v. Nahar Industrial En ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing the said decision, I find that during the said period, the appellant being manufacturer/provider of service, could not have utilized the credit of CENVAT for payment of Service Tax on Goods Transport Agency services. 4.1 It is seen that the Explanation to the definition of output service was omitted by Notification No. 8/2006-CE(NT) dated 19.4.2006. Output services thereafter only included the taxable services provided by a provider of taxable service to a customer, client, subscriber etc. After omission of the explanation, the possibility of the services received to be considered as an output service no longer remained. Thus, for the period after 19.4.2006, there was no doubt that the Goods Transport Agency services cannot be con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
