Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member - Both the appeals filed by the Revenue are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of same impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals).

2. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri R.K. Gupta, learned AR appearing for the Revenue and Shri R. Nair, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent, we find that the short issue involved is as to whether the respondent, who are receiving GTA services and are liable to pay Service Tax, can utilise the Cenvat credit for payment of such Service Tax. Revenue's contention is that inasmuch as the said GTA services so received by the appellants is not output service, they are not entitled to use the Cenvat credit for payment of Service Tax.

3. Commissioner (Appeals) by relying upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of CCE v. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. [Final Order No. ST/113-119/2008,dated 20-6-2008] has held in favour of the respondents. Hence, the present appeal.

4. We find that the said Tribunal's decision stands upheld by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, as CCE v. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. [2010] 29 STT 172, when the appeals filed by the Revenue was rejected. However, learned AR submits that the period involved in the present appeal is from April, 2006 to September, 2006. The legal fiction given to the said service for treating the same as output service, as defined in Rule 2(p) was withdrawn with effect from 19-4-2006 inasmuch as Explanation to Rule 2(p) was deleted. As such, he submits that as the period involved in the case of Nahar Industrial Enterprises (supra) was prior to 19-4-2006, the ratio of law declared therein cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. He also draws our attention to a Single Member decision of the Tribunal in the case of Uni Deritend Ltd. v. CC&CE [2012] 34 STT 356 wherein after taking note of the Nahar Industrial Enterprises decision it was held that the benefit of law as declared in the above decision cannot be extended to the assessee for the period beyond 18-4-2006. As such, he prays for allowing the Revenue's appeal.

5. As against the above learned Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the fact of withdrawal/deletion of explanation to Rule 2(p) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 will not have much effect inasmuch as no amendment was made to the provisions of Rule 2(r) of Cenvat Credit Rules. In terms of said sub-rule (r), 'provider of taxable service' include a personal liability for paying Service Tax. Inasmuch as the respondent is liable to pay Service Tax in respect of GTA service so received by them, who is required to be treated as 'provider of taxable service' in terms of the said Rule. Consequently, if he is a provider of taxable service, he is covered by the definition of output service, as defined in Rule 2(p).

He submits that above submissions were taken note of by the Tribunal in the case of Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. v. CCE [Final Order Nos. ST/391-392/2011 (PB), dated 11-8-2011] and were found favour with. He also draws our attention to another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dhillon Kool Drinks & Beverages Ltd. v. CCE 2011 (263) ELT 241 (Tri.-Delhi). He submits that Single Member decision of the Tribunal in Uni Deritend Ltd. (supra) relied upon by learned AR has not taken note of by Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. (supra) and as such, should not be relied upon.

6. After hearing both the sides, we find that the Tribunal in the case of Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. (supra) referred supra has taken note of identical submissions made on behalf of the assessee has held that recipient of services from the GTA is liable to pay the Service Tax and as such provider of taxable service in terms of Rule 2(r) and consequently gets covered by output service definition as appearing in Rule 2(p) of the Rules. As such, we find that deletion of explanation with effect from 18-4-2006 from Rule 2(p) of the Cenvat