Recipient of GTA services can use Cenvat credit for Service Tax, as per Cenvat Credit Rules.

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals, affirming that the recipient of GTA services could utilize Cenvat credit for paying Service Tax based on the interpretation of Rule 2(r) and Rule 2(p) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The decision emphasized the recipient's liability to pay Service Tax as a provider of taxable service, supported by previous judgments.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the recipient of GTA services can utilize Cenvat credit for paying Service Tax.
2. Impact of the withdrawal of the legal fiction treating the service as output service.
3. Interpretation of Rule 2(r) and Rule 2(p) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case was whether the recipient of GTA services could use Cenvat credit for paying Service Tax. The Revenue argued that since the GTA services received were not output services, the Cenvat credit could not be utilized. However, the Tribunal considered previous decisions and held that the recipient of services from GTA is liable to pay Service Tax and is considered a provider of taxable service under Rule 2(r), thus falling under the definition of output service in Rule 2(p).

2. The impact of the withdrawal of the legal fiction treating the service as output service was discussed. The Revenue argued that the legal fiction was withdrawn with effect from April 19, 2006, and therefore, the previous decisions could not be applied to the present case. However, the Tribunal noted that the deletion of the explanation from Rule 2(p) did not significantly affect the recipient's liability to pay Service Tax as a provider of taxable service under Rule 2(r).

3. The interpretation of Rule 2(r) and Rule 2(p) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was crucial in determining the recipient's liability to pay Service Tax and eligibility to use Cenvat credit. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, such as Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd., which held that the recipient of GTA services is considered a provider of taxable service and falls under the definition of output service. The Tribunal also distinguished a Single Member decision that did not consider the earlier Division Bench judgment, emphasizing the importance of consistent interpretation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals, affirming that the recipient of GTA services could utilize Cenvat credit for paying Service Tax based on the interpretation of Rule 2(r) and Rule 2(p) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal's decision was supported by previous judgments and emphasized the recipient's liability to pay Service Tax as a provider of taxable service.

---