P.G. Chacko, Judicial Member - In both the appeals filed by the assessee, the short question which arises for consideration is whether the appellant can claim CENVAT credit of service tax paid on GTA service which was availed for clearance of their final products from the place of removal to customers' premises during the period of dispute. The first appeal is directed against denial of CENVAT credit on GTA service for the period from August 2006 to October 2007 and second appeal against denial of CENVAT credit on the same service for the period from November 2007 to July 2008. GTA service was employed by the appellant for outward transportation of their final product (cement) from factory/depot (place of removal) to customers' premises. The authorities below have denied the benefit to the appellant by holding that the service used by them for such transportation of goods was not an 'input service' as defined under Rule 2(I) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

2. The learned consultant for the appellant submits that, insofar as, the credit availed for the period up to 31/3/2008 is concerned, there can be no dispute regarding the entitlement of the appellant inasmuch as the Hon'ble High Court has held in the case of CCEST v. ABB Ltd. [2011] 32 STT 141 that transportation of the final products from place of removal stood included in the definition of Input service' as it stood prior to 1/4/2008. The learned consultant, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order insofar as the CENVAT credit for the period prior to 1/4/2008 is concerned. We have heard the learned Commissioner (A.R.) also, who has acknowledged the decision of the Hon'ble High Court as applicable to the period prior to 1/4/2008.

3. In the above scenario, we hold that the appellant is entitled to take CENVAT credit on GTA service which was used for outward transportation of their final product from the place of removal to customers' premises prior to 1/4/2008. In the result, the first appeal has to be allowed, and it is ordered accordingly.

4. The period of dispute involved in the second appeal is partly beyond 31/3/2008. To be precise, the immediate question to be considered is whether the appellant can claim CENVAT credit on GTA service used for outward transportation of their final product from the place of removal to customers' premises from 1/4/2008 to 31/7/2008. This issue, it appears, was not examined by the Hon'ble High Court in the cited case of M/s ABB Ltd. This issue has been hotly agitated before us. The learned consultant for the appellant refers to the wording of the definition of 'input service' and submits that there is nothing in the definition to indicate that a manufacturer of excisable goods is barred from availing CENVAT credit on transportation of final products from the place of removal for the period after 31/3/2008. In this connection, it is submitted that the expression 'place of removal' used in the definition of 'input service' should not be understood as defined under Section-4 of the Central Excise Act. It is submitted that the said definition is for the limited purpose of valuation of excisable goods under Section-4 and cannot be applied to anything connected with CENVAT credit on input services. The learned consultant particularly refers to the inclusive part of the definition of 'input service' and points out that "final products" is conspicuously absent therein. Therefore, the definition should not be interpreted to deny CENVAT credit to the appellant on GTA service for the period beyond 31/3/2008.

5.Per contra, the learned Commissioner (A.R.), himself also referring to the terms of the definition of 'input service', argues that the amendment of the definition with effect from 1/4/2008 is crucial and has to be given effect to. It is argued that, for a manufacturer of excisable goods to claim CENVAT credit on GTA service used for transportation of such goods, he can claim the benefit only up to the place of removal and not