CARONA PLUS INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent that it upholds the order -in -original holding that, being a recipient of GTA service the appellant was not entitled to utilize the service tax towards payment of service tax on the freight paid under GTA as the inward transportation of input or capital goods and outward transportation upto the place of removal have been treated as input service under Rule 2(B)(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

(2.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the applicant contended that, since the tax liability pertained to the period from April 2005 to March 2006 as per the ST -3 returns for that period, the service for which the appellant paid the tax was required to be treated as output service under the explanation to Rule 2(p) of the said Rules. He placed reliance on the decisions of this Tribunal in India Cements Ltd. v. CCE Salem reported in 2007 (7) STR 569 (Tri. -Chennai)CCE Chandigarh v. Nahar Industrial Eneterprises Ltd. reported in 2007 (7) STR 26 (Tri. -Del.) and R.R.D. Tex Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Salem reported in 2007 (81) RLT 557 (CESTAT -Che.) in support of his submissions.

(3.) THE explanation to the definition of output service under Rule 2(p) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as it existed prior to 1.4.2006, was as under: