Appeal rejected as no grounds found for interference. Decision favors Revenue on Service Tax.

The appeal was rejected as the Member upheld the impugned order, finding no grounds for interference. The decision favored the Revenue, citing a previous case where it was held that credit cannot be availed for Service Tax on GTA services. The Member considered the settled nature of the issue by the High Court and the subsequent amendment of the definition of input services, leading to the conclusion that the appellant's appeal lacked merit.

---

---

Issues:
Eligibility to avail Cenvat Credit of Service Tax on GTA Services for transportation of finished goods from job workers premises to the depot of principal manufacturer.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the eligibility to avail Cenvat Credit of Service Tax on GTA Services for transporting finished goods. The appellant, a job worker of a manufacturer, contended that the services disputed were for goods removed from the factory to the depot of the principal manufacturer. The appellant relied on a decision by the Tribunal and circulars issued by the Board to support their claim. The appellant argued that the definition of the place of removal was inserted in the Cenvat Credit Rules in 2014, while the period in question was from 2012 to 2015. The appellant sought to avail the credit based on the Tribunal's decision and argued for the appeal to be allowed.

The Departmental Representative (DR) argued that a similar issue involving the same principal manufacturer was decided by a Division Bench in a previous case, where it was held that credit cannot be availed for Service Tax paid on GTA services. Upon careful consideration, the Member found that the decision of the Division Bench in the previous case favored the Revenue. The previous case involved the same principal manufacturer and job worker, with the period falling after the amendment of the definition of input services in 2008. The decision of the Tribunal in the previous case was upheld by the High Court. Given the finality of the issue as decided by the High Court and the subsequent amendment of the definition of input services, the Member concluded that there was no merit in the appellant's appeal. The reliance placed by the appellant on a different Tribunal decision was deemed inapplicable due to the settled nature of the issue by the High Court.

In conclusion, the Member upheld the impugned order as correct and legal, finding no grounds for interference. The appeal was rejected, and the decision was pronounced in open court on a specified date.

---