9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing both sides, I note that the issue arising for consideration is already covered by earlier decision of this Bench. Hence, after dispensing with pre-deposit, I take up the appeal for final disposal. 2. The appellants are manufacturers of cotton yarn. They pay service tax on Goods Transport Agency's Service received in connection with inward movement of their inputs. They also pay similar tax on similar service received in connection with outward movement of their final product. In both the instances, they are service recipients. During the period of dispute (Oct. '05 to March '06), for payment of this tax, they utilized credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods as also credit of service tax paid on input serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strued 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 out put service. It has been pointed out by learned counsel that the Explanation was omitted on 19-04-2006 and the same was in force during the period of dispute. In the present case, the appellants were only receiving taxable services and not providing any, but they were discharging Service Tax liability in respect of the Goods Transport Agency's Service received for the inward and outward movement of goods. As per the above Explanation, where ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, as learned Single Member of the Tribunal at Delhi allowed similar credit to the assessee in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. M/s. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. in Appeal No. 22 of 2007-NB(SM) dated 7-3-2007 12007 (7) S.T.R. 26 (Tribunal) = 2007-TIOL- 555-CESTAT-DEL] cited by learned counsel. Learned SDR has particularly retied on a circular dated 3-10-2005 of the Board. A part of this circular is seen to have been reproduced in the impugned order. This is a clarification to the effect that, under the provisions of Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, a person discharging Service Tax liability is neither the provider of output service nor the manufacturer of final product as required under the Cenvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
