1. Heard both sides and perused the records.
2. The appellant paid service tax on Goods Transport Agency Service from Cenvat account during the period July, 2005 to Mar. 06. Adjudicating authority by the impugned order confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs.8,37,108/- along with interest which is to be paid in cash through TR-6 challan instead of payment through Cenvat account.
3. The learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. reported in 2007 (7) S.T.R.26 (Tri.-Del.) held that there is no restriction for utilizing of Cenvat credit by the manufacturing units towards payment of service tax as service provider on G.T.A. service as per CBEandC Manual of Supplementary Instructions and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. The decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. reported in 2012 (25) S.T.R.129 (PandH).
4. The learned Authorised Representative relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Cetnral Excise, Raigad Vs Santogen Exports reported in 2009 (240) E.L.T.530 (Tri.-Mum.) and M/s. Arunachala Gounder Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Salem vide Interim Order No.38/2014, dated 12.02.2014.
5. I find that this issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Tribunal. It has been held that the assessee manufacturing textile goods, and also deemed output service providers of GTA service, was entitled to utilize their Cenvat credit for payment of Service tax on GTA services.
6. In view of that the case laws relied upon by the learned Authorised Representative is not applicable in the present case. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed with consequential relief.