TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 42
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4-7-2008 certified on 8.7.2008 in Application No. ST/Stay/110/2008 and Appeal No. ST/127/2008 Smt. Radhika Chandrasekar, Adv. for Appellant Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR for Respondent [Order per P.G. Chacko Member (Judicial)] - After examining the records and hearing both sides, I am of the view that the appeal itself requires to be disposed of summarily. Accordingly, after dispensing with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."output service" given under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, they were entitled to treat GTA Service as an 'output service'. This plea was repelled and the original authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 62,812/- against the appellants under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 with interest under Section 75 of the Act and imposed on them a penalty equal to tax under Section 76 of the Act. The appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be deemed to be the output service." As the appellants were, admittedly engaged in the manufacture of goods during the material period, they were not entitled to treat GTA service as an output service in terms of the above Explanation. In other words, input service tax credit was not available to be utilized for payment of service tax on GTA Service, which was also an input service. The ld. couns....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hennai) (3) R.R.D. Tex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, 2007 (8) STR 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. Finally, the ld. counsel has relied on the Board's Circular F. No. 341/18/2004 dt. 17.12.04 [reported in 2004 (65) RLT M101], wherein issu....