JUDGMENT JUDGMENT K.S. Jhaveri, J. - In both appeals common questions of law and facts are involved, hence, they are decided by this common judgment. 2. By way of these appeals, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee. 3. This Court while admitting the matters framed the following questions of law :- In DBITA No. 22/2011 and 27/2012 "Whether Section 68(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 6(2) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 and Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat [Credit] Rules, 2004 permit utilize of Cenvat credit account for payment of Service Tax on Goods Transport Agency service during the relevant period of February, 2005 to September, 2006?" 4. Counsel for respondent has relied upon the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. reported in 2012 (25) S.T.R. 129 (P and H) wherein it has been held as under :- "8. Apart from the above, even as per Rule 3(4)(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the Cenvat credit may be utilized for payment of service tax on any output service. 9. In the present case also the service tax was paid out of the Cenvat credit on GTA services and, hence, the respondents were well within their right to utilize the Cenvat credit for the purpose of payment of service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have rightly held that the respondents were entitled to pay the service tax from the Cenvat credit." 5. He has relied upon the decision of Madras High Court in case of in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem vs. Cheran Spinners Ltd. reported in 2014 (33) S.T.R. 148 (Mad.) wherein it has been held as under :- "10. He has relied upon the decision of Madras High Court in case of in case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem vs. Cheran Spinners Ltd. reported in 2014 (33) S.T.R. 148 (Mad.) wherein it has been held as under :- "10. Going by the fiction under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 and CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, deeming the payer of service tax as the person liable for paying the service tax in relation to such service, it is clear that while in the case of "input service", any service used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products from the place of removal, is considered as "input service", in contrast to this, the Explanation given under "output service" in Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, thus deems that in the case of a person not proving taxable service or manufacture final products but liable for paying service tax, the service for which he is liable to pay service tax by reason Section 62(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 shall be deemed as "output service". Thus, while Rule 2(l) and 2(p) cover two classes of persons, the recipient of GTA services, by virtue of the Explanation to Rule 2(p) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, as a provider of output service, is entitled to all benefits that a person providing input service would be entitled to in the matter of CENVAT'' credit adjustment. Thus, a reading of Rules 2(l) and 2(p) would show that they cover two different situations and though their operations are totally different, yet, for the purpose of giving credit to the service tax payable from the CENVAT credit available, the recipient is also entitled to the same relief as a provider of the service. Thus, we do not find any error in the reasoning of the Tribunal that in the payment of service tax liability by the recipient of taxable service, such assessees are also entitled to make use of CENVAT credit to discharge their liability under the service tax provisions. Thus, we do not find any error in the reasoning of the Tribunal that in the payment of service tax liability by the recipient of taxable service, such assessees are also entitled to make use of CENVAT credit to discharge their liability under the service tax provisions. Consequently, we do not agree with the submission of the Revenue to set aside the order of the Tribunal." 5.1 He has also relied upon the decision of Gujarat High Court in case of Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2016 (332) E.L.T. 242 (Guj.) wherein it has been held as under :- "6. The facts as emerging from the record clearly demonstrate that in case of similarly situated persons, namely, M/s. Alps Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and others, as stated in Paragraph 9 of the memorandum of petition, the respondent authorities have permitted them to discharge the excise duty foregone from the Cenvat credit account instead of the cash payment. The petitioners have produced on record a copy of a communication dated 21-11-2014 of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-II, Ahmedabad addressed to the Deputy Development Commissioner in connection with the request for "No Due Certificate" for debonding of Exit out of 100% EOU Scheme by one M/s. Alps Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., which clearly shows that the said unit has been permitted to discharge excise duty for indigenously procured duty paid raw materials lying in stock in their factory from the Cenvat credit account. In Paragraphs 9 and 14 of the memorandum of petition, the petitioners have clearly stated the names of various parties in whose cases the Ahmedabad Commissionerate has permitted payment of excise duty from the Cenvat credit account. The petitioners have also stated that all over the country, EOUs are permitted to discharge the central excise duty foregone from the Cenvat credit account. Thus, on the ground of parity alone, the petitioners have made out a strong prima facie case, inasmuch as, when similarly situated assessees have been permitted to pay the excise duty foregone from the Cenvat credit account, there is no reason as to why the petitioners should be denied such benefit. Thus, on the ground of parity alone, the petitioners have made out a strong prima facie case, inasmuch as, when similarly situated assessees have been permitted to pay the excise duty foregone from the Cenvat credit account, there is no reason as to why the petitioners should be denied such benefit. Besides, the petitioner company is a reputed well established Pharmaceutical Company and hence, the interest of the revenue is in no manner jeopardized if the interim relief, as prayed for, is granted, whereas the petitioner company would have to face a cash crunch if called upon to pay the excise duty foregone in cash, whereas its Cenvat credit account would remain unutilized. Besides, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, ultimately the excise duty foregone which is to be paid in cash, is going to be added back to the amount of Cenvat credit lying in the account of the petitioners, under the circumstances, the petitioners have clearly made out a prima facie case in their favour. Besides, as noted hereinabove, in case the petitioner company is required to pay the excise duty foregone in cash instead of from the Cenvat credit account, it is likely to face liquidity crunch, thereby causing irreparable injury to the petitioners. In Ralli Engine Ltd. vs. Union of India and others (supra), this court, in the facts of the said case has held that when different companies situated in different regions of the country, are granted a particular benefit, the petitioner therein which was situated in Gujarat, was also entitled to the similar treatment. As noted hereinabove, various assessees, including the assessees situated within the jurisdiction of Ahmedabad Commissionerate have been given benefit of paying the excise duty foregone from the Cenvat credit account. Under the circumstances, prima facie, there appears to be no reason to deny such benefit to the petitioners. In the light of the above discussion, the court is of the view that the matter requires consideration. Hence, issue rule returnable on 17th December, 2015. By way of interim relief, subject to the final outcome of the petition, the petitioners are permitted to pay the excise duty foregone from the legally availed Cenvat credit account. In the light of the above discussion, the court is of the view that the matter requires consideration. Hence, issue rule returnable on 17th December, 2015. By way of interim relief, subject to the final outcome of the petition, the petitioners are permitted to pay the excise duty foregone from the legally availed Cenvat credit account. Upon the excise duty being paid through the Cenvat credit account, the second respondent shall issue "No Due Certificate" to the petitioners for debonding out of 100% EOU Scheme." 5.2 He has relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Service Tax vs. M/s. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. reported in 2013 (29) S.T.R. 358 (Del.) wherein it has been held as under :- "4. As is evident, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had relied on Rule 3(4)(e) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The operative part of Rule 3(1) states that a manufacturer or producer of final products or a provider of taxable service shall be allowed to take credit i.e. CENVAT credit in terms of its provisions. Rule 3(4), to the extent it is material for the present purpose reads as follows :- (4) The CENVAT credit may be utilized for payment of - (a) any duty of excise on any final product; or (b) an amount equal to CENVAT credit taken on inputs if such inputs are removed as such or after being partially processed; or (c) an amount equal to the CENVAT credit taken on capital goods if such capital goods are removed as such; or (d) an amount under sub-rule (2) of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002; or (e) service tax on any output service : Section 68(1) and (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 read as follows : Section 68. Payment of Service Tax. - (1) Every person providing taxable service to any person shall pay service tax at the rate specified in Section 66 in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in respect of any taxable service notified by the Central Govt. Payment of Service Tax. - (1) Every person providing taxable service to any person shall pay service tax at the rate specified in Section 66 in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in respect of any taxable service notified by the Central Govt. in the Official Gazette, the service tax thereon shall be paid by such person and in such manner as may be prescribed at the rate specified in Section 66 and all the provisions of this chapter shall apply to such person as if he is the person liable for paying the service tax in relation to such service. In view of the specific reference to service tax and the benefit allowed to a service provider, read with the fiction created by Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, this Court is of the opinion that there is no ground to disagree with the judgment and reasoning of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. The appeal consequently fails and the question of law is answered in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue." 5.3 He has relied upon the decision of Himachal Pradesh High Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Auro Spinning Mills and Ors. reported in 2012 (26) S.T.R. 413 (H.P.) wherein it has been held as under :- "4. The respondents are all engaged in the business of manufacturing of goods. They are also liable for payment of service tax under the goods transport agency service. The respondents utilized the CENVAT credit given to them for their manufacturing activities for payment of service tax on GTA service. The case of the Revenue is that the CENVAT credit could not be utilized for payment of CENVAT payable on services rendered and this should have been paid in cash. We find that the order of the Tribunal in Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. and other similar matters was challenged before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which decided a large number of appeals in favour of the assessee vide its judgment dated 6th May, 2010 and it held as follows : Learned Counsel for the Revenue has contended that the respondents cannot pay the service tax from the Cenvat credit availed by them. But this argument has no force because a perusal of para 2.4.2 of C.B.E. and C''s Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions shows that there is no legal bar to the utilization of Cenvat credit for the purpose of payment of service tax on the GTA services. Apart from the above, even as per Rule 3(4)(e) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the Cenvat credit may be utilized for payment of service tax on any output service. In the present case also, the service tax was paid out of the Cenvat credit on GTA services and hence the respondents were well within their right to utilize the Cenvat credit for the purpose of payment of service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have rightly held that the respondents were entitled to pay the service tax from the Cenvat credit." 6. He contended that SLP is pending against the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court. 7. In that view of the matter, the issue is required to be answered in favour of the assessee against the department. 8. The appeals stand dismissed.