ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the impugned judgment the High Court has noted two substantial questions of law on which the appeal was admitted and these are as under: '(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 Goods Transport Agency"? (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 and Notification No. 35/2004 ST dated 03.12.2004 w.e.f. 01.01.2005 and thereby setting aside the order in Original dated 21.08.2008?" 2. From the aforesaid it is clear that the question which needed consideration by the High Court was as to whether the category of Goods Transport Agency" is exigible to service tax as per Section 65(105) (zzp) and Section 65 (50b) of the Finance Act as well as Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Section 65 (50b) defines Goods Transport Agency" to mean any person who provides service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues consignment note by whatever name called. On the other hand, Section 65(105) (zzp), provides that the service to a customer by a goods transport agency, in relation to transport of goods by road in a goods carriage. 3. It is on the basis of the aforesaid definitions the High Court was required to decide as to whether the services provided by the respondent(s)/assessee(s) herein are covered by the aforesaid definitions. The High Court has not discussed the aforesaid issue. Instead, it has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue by observing that the aforesaid questions of law are covered by the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 23.03.2011 in C.E.A No. 121 of 2009 and other connected matters titled as Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., LTU, Bangalore v. ABB Ltd. reported in [2011] (23)S.T.R. 97 (Kar.). 4. 4. In the said judgment the issue pertained to CENVAT credit of service tax in respect of input service and that whether output transportation from the place of removal was input service of which CENVAT credit was admissible. Thus, the issue in ABB Ltd. case was entirely different and the High Court has wrongly dismissed the appeal of the Revenue/appellant herein by relying upon the said judgment. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for de novo consideration.