JUDGMENT Ravi Malimath, J.—This appeal is by the revenue being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal 2009 (16) S.T.R. 691 (Tri. - Bang.) holding that the assessee are not liable to pay service tax under the category of GTA (Goods Transport Agency). The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of exporting Iron ore and are receiving service from various Goods Transport Operations. The service so rendered are taxable under the category of Transport of Goods by Road Services covered under Sections 65(50b) and 65(105)(zzp) of the Finance Act, 1994 and have taken service tax registration under the above mentioned category. 2. On gathering intelligence and on verifying the records it was revealed that the assessee had short paid service tax to the tune of Rs. 92,51,572/-on the GTA service received during the period from 1-1-2005 to 28-2-2007. Hence, a show cause notice was issued as to why the service tax amounting to Rs. 92,51,572/- should not be recovered and the said amount already paid by the assessee should not be appropriated against the said demand along with payment of interest and penalty. The assessee submitted his reply. The assessing authority came to the conclusion that the service provider is a Goods Transport Agency and not merely a truck owner or operator. That Goods Transport Agency themselves can be the owners of the truck. Therefore, the plea of the assessee was rejected and it was concluded that the services received by the assessee is a taxable service. Accordingly, the demand was confirmed along with imposition of interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that from the definition of GTA and also the clarification made by the Finance Minister in his Budget Speech the Tax has been wrongly paid by the assessee, since they are not liable to pay any service tax. Accordingly, they held that the assessee is not liable to pay service tax under the category of GTA. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue has filed the present appeal. 3. Accordingly, they held that the assessee is not liable to pay service tax under the category of GTA. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue has filed the present appeal. 3. This appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the order of the CESTAT, based solely on the speech of the Hon'ble Finance Minister made while introducing the Finance Bill, 2004 and not as per the statutory provisions of law was right in holding that the Respondents were not liable to pay Service Tax under the category of "GTA" ? (ii) Whether the order of the CESTAT was right in holding that the Respondents were not liable to Service Tax under the category of "Goods Transport Agency", contrary to the statutory provisions of law i.e., Section 65(105)(zzp), Section 65(50b), Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 & Notification No. 35/2004-S.T. dated 3-12-2004 w.e.f. 1-1-2005 and thereby setting aside the Order-in-Original dated 21-8-2008?" Therefore the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the assessees are liable to pay service tax or not under the category of Goods Transport Agency? 5. An identical issue came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in CEA No. 121/2009 and connected matters. This court by the order dated 23-3-2011 Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, LTU. Vs. ABB Ltd., (2011) 32 STT 141 came to the conclusion that service tax is paid on transportation charges fell within the phrase "clearance of final products from the place of removal" and therefore, the assessee was entitled to Cenvat credit." The question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal having since been answered by the Division Bench in the above referred appeal, the substantial question of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.