TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (6) TMI 247
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... common issue is involved in all three appeals, therefore, they are taken up together for disposal. 4. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacture of Organic Chemicals falling under Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They availed CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services during the period January, 2005 to December, 2006. The assessee debited Service Tax on GTA services through their CENVAT account and availed credit in the same month. The Service Tax payment on GTA services was not allowed through CENVAT account at the material period. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to pay the same through TR-6 challan which they did on 30-3-2005 and 28-3-2007. They paid interest of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....effect from 19-4-2006, learned Counsel stated that explanation of Rule 2(p) was removed. In support of their contention he also placed reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Union of India 1999 (106) ELT 3 and the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE v. Vulcan Gears [2009] 23 STT 472 (Ahd. - CESTAT). 6. The contention of the Revenue is that it is not in dispute that initially they have paid the Service Tax on GTA services through their CENVAT account, however, they availed its credit in the same month. Therefore, their contention that they have not retained the Service Tax which was due to Government is not correct and against that they were required to pay the Service Tax, which was practic....