Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member. - Heard both sides.

2. After hearing the matter for sometime, we are of the view that the appeal itself can be decided today. Hence, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit of the interest on the service tax and proceed to hear and decide the appeal.

3. The appellants pay service tax in respect of GTA services, which is an input for final products produced by them. During the impugned period 1-1-2005 to 30-9-2005, the appellants as recipient of GTA service were required to pay service tax on the same and they paid the service tax by utilization of the Cenvat credit on GTA services. As the Department objected to such payment by utilization of Cenvat credit, they deposited the entire amount of Rs. 67,57,180 by cash on 30-3-2006. The impugned order demands interest on the amount paid by cash taking the same as a delayed payment.

4. Shri Ravi Raghwan, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that under rule 2(p) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the GTA service is very much an output service even though the tax is paid and credit is earned by the recipient on this service itself. He further states that under rule 3(4)(e) of the said Rules, the Cenvat credit on service tax is permitted to be utilized for payment of service tax on any output service. As such, he submits that initial payment by the appellants through Cenvat credit was authorized under the rules and hence subsequent payment by cash cannot entail a liability to pay interest on the impugned amount. In support of his contention he cites the following decisions of the Tribunal :

(i)CCE v. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. [2007] 10 STT 117 (Delhi - CESTAT) ;

(ii)India Cements Ltd. v. CCE 2007 - TIOL - 848 - CESTAT - Mad.;

(iii)CCE v. Visaka Industries Ltd. [Final Order No. 1096 of 2007, dated 2-7-2007] (Mum. - CESTAT);

(iv)MMS Steels Ltd. v. CCE 2007 - TIOL - 1317- CESTAT - Mad.;

(v)R.R.D. Tex (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [2007] 10 STT 255 (Chennai - CESTAT).

5. Shri Vineet Ohri, Ld. Jt. CDR states that there is no objection to grant of the stay but the regular hearing of the appeal should be taken on another day.

6. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the case records as well as the cited decisions, we are of the view that the case of the appellants is squarely covered by the said decisions of the Tribunal. As such, we do not find any merit in the request of the Department to hear the regular appeal on another date. The appellants are clearly entitled to utilize the credit available to them in respect of the input service towards payment of the service tax on GTA services which is an output service by definition. Hence, applying the ratio of the cited decisions, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.