Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s Balkrishna Industries, is a manufacturer of pneumatic tyres, used in agricultural/ forestry/ other machines and motor vehicles.
• Audit of its books for the period, i.e., May 2012 to March, 2015, Department observed that the appellant had availed Cenvat credit on certain ineligible services relating to civil work and construction. The nature of works contract services/ construction services, hence, excluded from the purview of definition of “input service” under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 
• Further, it was observed that in June, 2013, the appellant had wrongly availed Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.9,312/- on the strength of six invoices issued in June, 2013 where service tax has not been charged, but stamped on invoice that amount is inclusive of service tax of Rs. 9,312/- charged on freight of Rs.2,55,395/-, paid by the supplier.
• Aggrieved, the Appellant filed this appeal.

Issue –

• Whether the Cenvat Credit on input services can be availed in respect to the above?

Order –

• The Tribunal observed that repair and maintenance have been specifically provided as input service in the in the inclusive clause of the definition, which provides for credit with regard to services received for repair of a factory or office relating to such factory.  Further, this issue is squarely covered by the precedent order of this Tribunal in appellant’s own case.
• In respect to the input service on GTA service, the Tribunal hold that the appellant manufacturer are the receiver of the input service. It is immaterial as to who deposited the Service tax, as it is specifically mentioned in the invoice of the supplier that service tax of GTA service has been deposited on the freight element. Further, the Court below has held that service tax has been deposited in respect of GTA service in question.  Accordingly, I hold that the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit on the same.
• In view of my findings and observations, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.