2016 (8) TMI 354

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ENVAT Credit for the payment of Service Tax on Goods Transport Operator Services on reverse charge basis. The demand was confirmed by both the lower authorities. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that at the material time, the definition of output services did not exclude the Goods Transport Agency services from its purview. He argued that at the material time, the definition of output services provided under sub-rule (p) of Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read as follows: - "(p) output service means any taxable service provided by the provider of taxable service, to a customer, client, subscriber, policy holder of any other person, as the case may be, and the expressions provider and provided shall be construed ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) output service means any taxable service provided by the provider of taxable service, to a customer, client, subscriber, policy holder of any other person, as the case may be, and the expressions provider and provided shall be construed accordingly; Explanation: - For the removal of doubts it is hereby clarified that 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 Service Tax shall be deemed to be the output service." With effect from 19.4.2006 the explanation was omitted. In the case of Alstom Projects India Ltd. (supra), para 3 & 4 of the said order sums up the issues to be examined by interpreting Rule 2(p) of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iance placed by the appellants on the amendment of Rule 2(b) (sic) by the Finance Act, 2008, the ld. counsel submits that the appellants do not propose to press this ground. 4. The ld. counsel has also relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal :- (1) Commissioner v. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. - 2007 (7) S.T.R. 26 (Tri.-Del.) (2) India Cements Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2007 (7) S.T.R. 569 (Tri.-Chennai) = 2008 (223) E.L.T. 78 (T) (3) R.R.D. Tex Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2007 (8) S.T.R. 186 (Tri.-Chennai) In the above cases, the benefit of the Explanation was given to the assessees who satisfied the requirements thereof. The present appellants did not satisfy these requirements. Final....