Appellant granted pre-2008 CENVAT credit, denied post-2008. Matter remanded for credit quantification.

The Tribunal granted the appellant CENVAT credit for the period before 1-4-2008 but denied credit for the period after 31-3-2008. The matter was remanded for quantification of admissible and inadmissible credit, with the appellant's right to be heard on the issue of requantification.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Claim of CENVAT credit on GTA service for the transportation of final products from the place of removal to customers' premises. Interpretation of the definition of 'input service' under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the period prior to and after 1-4-2008.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Claim of CENVAT credit for the period prior to 1-4-2008
In the first appeal, the question was whether the appellant could claim CENVAT credit on GTA service used for outward transportation of final products before 1-4-2008. The appellant argued that the High Court had previously held such transportation as part of 'input service.' The Tribunal agreed, citing the High Court's decision and allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the CENVAT credit for the relevant period.

Issue 2: Claim of CENVAT credit for the period after 1-4-2008
The second appeal focused on whether the appellant could claim CENVAT credit on GTA service for transportation after 1-4-2008. The appellant contended that the definition of 'input service' did not restrict credit post 31-3-2008. However, the Commissioner argued that the amended definition from 1-4-2008 limited credit only up to the place of removal. The Tribunal analyzed the amended definition and concluded that post 31-3-2008, the GTA service used by the appellant did not fall within the definition of 'input service.' Therefore, the appellant was not entitled to claim CENVAT credit for the period after 31-3-2008.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the first appeal, granting the appellant CENVAT credit for the period before 1-4-2008. However, the second appeal was only partly allowed, as the appellant could not claim credit for the period post 31-3-2008. The matter was remanded to the original authority to quantify the admissible and inadmissible portions of CENVAT credit for the relevant period, ensuring the appellant's right to be heard on the limited issue of requantification.

---