COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. Vs. SPENDEX INDUSTRIES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals filed by the Revenue are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of same impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals).

(2.) After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri R.K. Gupta, learned AR appearing for the Revenue and Shri R. Nair, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent we find that the short issue involved is as to whether the respondent, who are receiving GTA services and are liable to pay Service Tax, can utilise the Cenvat credit for payment of such Service Tax. Revenue's contention is that inasmuch as the said GTA services so received by the appellants is not output service, they are not entitled to use the Cenvat credit for payment of Service Tax.

(3.) WE find that the said Tribunal's decision stands upheld by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, reported as [, 2010 (19) S.T.R. 166 (P&H)], when the appeals filed by the Revenue was rejected. However, learned AR submits that the period involved in the present appeal is from April, 2006 to September, 2006. The legal fiction given to the said service for treating the same as output service, as defined in Rule 2(p) was withdrawn with effect from 19 -4 -2006 inasmuch as Explanation to Rule 2(p) was deleted. As such, he submits that as the period involved in the case of Nahar Industrial Enterprises was prior to 19 -4 -2006, the ratio of law declared therein cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. He also draws our attention to a Single Member decision of the Tribunal in the case of Uni Deritend Ltd. [ : 2012 (25) S.T.R. 475 (Tri. -Mum.)] wherein after taking note of the Nahar Industrial Enterprises decision it was held that the benefit of law as declared in the above decision cannot be extended to the asses -see for the period beyond 18 -4 -2006. As such, he prays for allowing the Revenue's appeal.