2013 (11) TMI 1506

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ix the tyres on the vehicles. In such cases, the value of services charged was inclusive of the value of transportation of the tyres from the premises of the service receiver to the applicant's premises and back. Service tax was paid on such value. The appellant also paid service tax on the transportation of goods as receiver of the service under reverse charge mechanism and took Cenvat credit of such tax paid and utilized such Cenvat credit while discharging tax liability on re-treading of tyres. Revenue was of the view that Cenvat credit taken on tax paid under the category of Goods Transport Agency service cannot be allowed because it is not covered by the definition of 'input service' as defined in rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al'. Appellant is not a manufacturer of excisable goods but a provider of output service. For providing output service, there is no concept of 'place of removal' and therefore the criteria with reference to place of removal cannot be accepted. He submits that service has got very close nexus with the output service and he could not have discharged his responsibility under the service contract without transportation of goods. Therefore, he prays that Cenvat credit may be allowed. 4. Opposing the prayer, Ld. AR for Revenue reiterates the finding in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). He relies on the decision in the case of Madras Cement Vs CCE Bangalore -2012 (27) STR 470 (Tri.). The Tribunal after taking into consideration the decis....