1. Heard both sides.

2. In respect of Appeal at Sl. No. 49 above, I find that the lower appellate authority has passed the impugned order dismissing the appeal by refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him. I find that the delay is within the condonable limit available to the lower appellate authority and the explanation advanced on behalf of the appellants is acceptable. Hence, I am of the view that the appeal should not have been dismissed on the ground of delay. However, with the consent of both sides, instead of remanding back this matter for fresh decision, this appeal is also taken up for decision on merit as the issue involved in this case is the same as in the case of the entire batch of 50 appeals.

3. The issue involved in these cases is whether CENVAT credit can be utilized for payment of service tax on GTA services. The period involved in most of the cases is up to 18.4.2006 (Service Tax Rules were amended with effect from 19.4.2006) and in some cases, the period extends beyond 18.4.2006. The basic contention of the Department is that recipients of GTA service are not output service providers and hence, they cannot utilize CENVAT credit for payment of service tax on GTA service. It is the contention of the appellant/respondent-assessees that the recipients of GTA service are deemed to be output service providers under the law and therefore, they are entitled to pay service tax on GTA service by utilizing CENVAT credit.

4. These 50 cases were kept pending in view of the reference to the Larger Bench in the case of Panchmahal Steel Ltd. v. CCE&C [2008] 17 STT 455. However, these cases are taken up now for hearing and disposal, with the consent of both sides, in the light of the decision dated 8.9.2010 of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal headed by the Hon'ble President in the case of CCE v. Shri Tubes & Steels (P.) Ltd. [2011] 32 STT 235 (Bang. - CESTAT). I find that in paragraph 12 of the said decision in the case of Shri Tubes & Steels (P.) Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal Bench headed by the Hon'ble President has observed as follows:-

"Taking into consideration the question formulated for recording difference of opinion in Panchamahal Steel Ltd. case and applying the law laid down by the Apex Court and followed by the Larger Bench, it is difficult to accept the contention that the issue involved in the matter stands referred to the Larger Bench in Panchamahal Steel Ltd. case. In fact the issue referred therein is merely to decide whether the said issue needs to be decided by the Larger Bench or not and not for the opinion of the Larger Bench on the said issue itself."

5. I further find that the said Bench has proceeded to decide the case of Shri Tubes & Steels (P.) Ltd. (supra) which involved the very same issue as in this group of 50 cases and has passed the following order:-

"14. In CCE, Chandigarh v. Nahar Exports Ltd. reported in - (2007-TIOL-1907-CESTAT-DEL) : 2008(9) STR 252 (Tri. Del.), the Tribunal after taking note of the Explanation clause held thus,

"8 1. Under clause (p) of Rule 2, there is reference to taxable service provided by the provider of taxable service. Therefore, unless a taxable service is provided, ordinarily it would not fall under the definition of 'output service'. However, the explanation created a deeming fiction by providing that, if a person liable for paying service tax does not provide any taxable service or does not manufacture final product, the service for which he is liable to pay service tax shall be deemed to be the output service. The recipient of service from Goods Transport Operator or Agent having become liable to pay service tax, would be entitled to take the benefit of the deemed fiction, if he does not provide any taxable service or does not manufacture final product on which he could have utilized Cenvat credit. "Where a person provides any taxable service or manufactures final product, he can utilize the Cenvat credit in accordance with the Rules. Cenv