Tribunal grants CENVAT credits for GTA services used in transporting goods, overturning denial decisions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals challenging the denial of CENVAT credits for GTA services used in transporting goods, totaling Rs.5,55,349/- and Rs.1,10,719/- for the period from April to August, 2006. The Tribunal held that transportation charges for clearing final products were considered 'input service' before the Rule amendment on 01/04/2008, making the appellants eligible for the credits. The Tribunal found the lower appellate authority's contrary view unsustainable and set aside the impugned orders, allowing both appeals.

---

---

Issues:
- Denial of CENVAT credits for GTA service used in transportation of goods
- Interpretation of the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004

Analysis:
1. The appeals challenged the denial of CENVAT credits totaling Rs.5,55,349/- and Rs.1,10,719/- for the period from April to August, 2006, related to GTA service for transporting final products. The appellate authority relied on previous Tribunal judgments to support the denial of credits for transportation to buyers' premises.

2. The General Manager argued that the credits were admissible based on the Karnataka High Court's judgment in CCE&ST, Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd. and the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment in Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. UOI. He also referenced Tribunal decisions and Circular No.97/8/2007-ST approved by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The JDR acknowledged the Karnataka High Court's favorable judgment.

3. The Tribunal reviewed the judgments cited and noted that the key issue was whether transportation charges for clearing final products were considered 'input service' before the amendment to Rule 2(l) on 01/04/2008. The jurisdictional High Court held that, until the amendment, such transportation charges were included in the definition of 'input service,' making the appellants eligible for the credits. The lower appellate authority's contrary view was deemed unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders and allowing both appeals.

---