TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Act, 1994 read with Service Tax Rules, 1994, they are liable to pay service tax as service recipient, they also have service tax registration. They also availed Cenvat credit of central excise duty paid on inputs and capital goods and of service tax paid on "input services" used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products. The point of dispute in this case is as to whether the respondent could pay the service tax on the GTA services received as service recipient by using Cenvat credit or whether the same was required to be paid in cash. The department was of the view that during April, 2005 to September, 2005 period, they have wrongly paid the service tax of Rs. 40,949 though Cenvat credit account and thus, they have wrongl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vailable to receive the notice and in view of this, the notice of hearing was served by the officer, by affixing the same on the main gate of the noticee. Since in spite of the notices have been issued, the respondent have not appeared, in accordance with the Rule 21 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, this matter insofar as the respondents are concerned, is being decided ex parte. 3. Heard Shri R.K. Gupta, ld. DR, who assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal and pleaded that the GTA service received by the respondent is their input service and not their output service, that the Explanation to Rule 2(p) during the period of dispute is applicable to only in respect of those persons who do not manufacture any final pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... service recipient, that the same view has been taken by the Member (Technical) in the case of Panchmahal Steel Ltd. v. CCE&C [2008] 17 STT 455 (Ahd. - CESTAT) and this matter has been referred to the Larger Bench for decision and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of ld. DR and have gone through the records. The period of dispute in this case is from April, 2005 to September, 2005. There is no dispute that the respondent is a manufacturer of excisable goods and is liable to pay service tax on the GTA received by them by virtue of the provisions of section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The point of dispute is as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 'provider and provided' shall be construed accordingly. As per Explanation to this Rule, which was there during the 'period of dispute, if a person liable for paying service tax does not provide any taxable service, or does not manufacture final products, the service for which he is liable to pay the service tax shall be deemed to be the output service. From the above definition of "output service", it is clear that (a) the expression "provider of taxable service" and "provider of output service" are not the same as "provider of taxable service" becomes "provider of output service" only when he provides taxable services to some client or customers, etc., (b) the Explanation to Rule 2(p) is applicable only to those persons liable for paying....