CCE Vs. SHREE SIDHBALI STEELS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Adjudicating Order was set -aside.

(2.) AFTER hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the main contention of the ld. DR is that the Respondent had taken credit on the strength TR -6 Challan during the period from 01.01.2005 to 16.6.2005 on GTA Service, which is not legal and proper by virtue of amendment in Rule 9(1)(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 vide notification No. 28/2005 -CE (NT) dated 07.6.2005. I find that the issue has already been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Customs of Central Excise Goa v. Essel Pro -Pack Ltd. reported in 2007 (8) STR 609 (Tri -Mumbai), which had been followed in the subsequent decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa v. Crompton Greaves Ltd. reported in : 2008 (226) ELT 117 (Tri. -Mumbai). It has been held by the Tribunal, credit in respect of service tax paid on Goods Transport Agency services availed on the basis of TR -6 Challan is a valid document as Revenue failed to mention as to what was specified document for availing credit during relevant period. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal I do not find any merit in the appeal of the Revenue. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. Cross objection is disposed of.