1. Heard both sides. The revenue is in appeal aggrieved by the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The issue in the present appeal relates to whether the respondent is liable to pay service tax in cash under TR-6 challan of freight on road transport service rendered by Goods Transport Agencies in respect of inputs/raw material received in their factory during the period from 1-1-2005 to 30-9-2005.

2. Though the original adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand, the same has been set aside by the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Napgur while referring to the Notification No. 32/2004 (ST), dated 3-12-2004, definitions of "input service", "output service", "provider of taxable service" of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and section 68(2) of Finance Act, 1994. While referring to the above provisions it has been observed that the respondents were paying service tax on goods transport services, the services in question became "output service". Furthermore, the present issue is squarely covered by the Tribunal decision in the case of CCE v. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. [2007] 10 STT 117 (Delhi - CESTAT) and India Cements Ltd. v. CCE [F.O. No. 262 of 2007, S.O. No. 312 of 2007, dated 20-3-2007] (Chennai - CESTAT) in favour of the assessee. In the instant case, the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of polyester viscose blended yarn falling under Chapter 55 of CETA, 1985 and are availing benefit of Cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods and service tax under rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The respondents also got registered under Service Tax Rules, 1994 in the category of taxable services rendered by the Goods Transport Agency to discharge the service tax liability.

3. The ld. JDR put forth a contention that the decisions relied upon by the respondents of the North Zonal Bench at Delhi and South Zonal Bench at Madras have not considered the scope and object of the explanation provided under the definition of "output service" [R.2(p)]. As such he submits respectfully that the matter needs to be referred to Division Bench for correct interpretation of the aforesaid explanation. According to him, the respondents herein admittedly a manufacturing unit as such it does not fall within the meaning of explanation so as to attract definition of "output service". I am unable to agree with the said contention raised by the ld. JDR. As rightly observed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the respondent herein do fall within the definition of "provider of taxable service" under rule 2(r) which includes a personal liability for paying service tax. In other words, such activities are covered by the definition of "output service". Therefore, the impugned order is no way erroneous. I do not find any force in the contentions put forth by the ld. JDR. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for any indulgence of this Tribunal either to modify or to set aside or refer the issue to the Division Bench or Larger Bench. Thus. I find no merits in the appeal filed by the revenue. Accordingly, appeal dismissed.