Mohammad Rafiq, J.

1. Appeal No. 15/2018 has been filed by the appellant- Revenue assailing judgment dated 07.08.2017 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short ‘the Tribunal’) with the prayer to set aside the aforesaid judgment and order-in-original dated 14.10.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur (for short ‘the Adjudicating Authority’) be restored.

2. Aforesaid appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 14.02.2018 on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the learned CESTAT was right in law in holding that the Cenvat Credit of Goods Transport Agency services for outward transportation of goods beyond the place of removal is eligible within the meaning of ‘input service’ as defined under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004?”

3. The assessee has also filed Cross Objection No. 27/2018 raising the question of limitation, which remained unadjudicated by the Tribunal. The cross-objection filed by the assessee was also admitted by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.07.2018 on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the Tribunal was right in not considering or deciding the ground taken by the appellant in memo of appeal regarding limitation, as such order can be said to be complete to the extent of limitation only?”

4. The respondent-assessee is a registered manufacturer engaged in the manufacturing of Asbestos Cement Sheets, Asbestos Pressure Cement Pipe and Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastic Pipes falling under Chapter No. 68 and 70 respectively of the Schedule-I appended to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the course of audit of record of the respondent-assessee, it was noticed that it has availed CENVAT credit of service tax paid on outward transportation of goods i.e. from factory gate to buyer/consumer’s premises for the period from May, 2010 to December, 2012 amounting to Rs. 73,58,446/-. It appeared that those services were not covered under the definition of ‘input service’ under the provisions of Rule 2(l) and Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (for short ‘the Rules of 2004’). Therefore, a show cause notice dated 03.07.2013 was issued to the respondent-assessee proposing recovery of the CENVAT Credit wrongly availed along with interest under Rule 14 and penalty under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short ‘the Act’). The Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 14.10.2014 passed original demand order, disallowing claim of CENVAT Credit of Rs. 73,58,446/- and charged interest and penalty thereon. The respondent-assessee, being aggrieved by the order, preferred appeal before the Tribunal, which vide judgment dated 07.08.2017 allowed the appeal and set aside the original demand order dated 14.10.2014. Hence, this appeal.

5. Mr. Siddharth Ranka, learned counsel for the appellant-revenue has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration that the words, “clearance of final products from the place of removal” appearing in the definition of “input service” under Rule 2(l) of the Rules of 2004 prior to 01.03.2008 were amended by Notification No. 10/2008-CE(NT), dated 01.03.2008 by substituting the same with the words, “clearance of final products upto the place of removal”. Thus, if any ambiguity, which was there in respect of transportation charges upto the place of removal, the same has already been removed by the Government and therefore, transportation service taken upto the place of removal can only be covered under the definition of input service. The Tribunal has failed to notice this change in the definition while deciding the appeal of the assessee, while the impugned judgment has been given in the context of earlier definition of “input service”. Reference to definition of “place of removal” in Section 4(3)(c) of the Act of 1944 was also given. Since the present matter was covered by the aforesaid notification, the Tribunal was