1. The limited prayer of the appellant in this case is that it should not be denied credit of taxes paid in respect of goods transport agency service provided to the appellant. According to the ld. Counsel, taxes are deposited through challans because the rule has not mentioned that the challan showing deposit of the service tax paid on GTA services shall not be proof for the purpose of cenvat credit. Therefore, this appellant should not be denied credit thereof.

2. Ld. DR does not dispute that the service tax in respect of GTA services was paid by the appellant. Both parties also relied on TR 6 challans for claim of each other. Prayer of Shri Gupta, ld. DR is that in absence of rule, allowing TR 6 challan as the basis for granting credit, proper order was passed by the Appellate Authority below to deny cenvat credit.

3. Heard both sides and perused the records.

4. There is no dispute of either side that TR 6 challan was the prescribed basis to allow cenvat credit with effect from 16-6-2005 while the present case is prior to that. In absence of any other evidence prescribed by law to claim taxes paid in respect of GTA services other than through TR 6 challans the claim of the app