2009 (2) TMI 721 - AT - Service Tax

Summary

Issues involved: Denial of benefit based on lack of appropriate certificate on consignment notes; Disallowance of claim by the Appellant; Insistence on pre-deposit by the Authorities below.

In the present case, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, comprising Shri D.N. Panda and Rakesh Kumar, JJ., heard arguments from Shri S.V. Arya, Advocate for the Appellant, and Shri M.M. Singh, DR, for the Respondent. The issue at hand was the denial of benefit to the Appellant due to the lack of an appropriate certificate on the consignment notes, despite the production of an annual certificate of GTA. The ld. Counsel for the Appellant argued that previous decisions by the Tribunal had favored the assessee in similar situations.

The ld. Counsel for the Appellant highlighted that the Appellant had produced a copy of the certificate of GTA on an annual basis, but the claim was still disallowed by the Authorities below. He referenced previous cases such as CCE v. Sunhill Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Jain Steels v. CCE, and Mohit Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE, where waivers of pre-deposit were granted during the pendency of appeals based on the filing of annual declarations.

On the other hand, the ld. DR representing the Respondent contended that the order passed by the Authorities below was proper, and therefore, insisted on pre-deposit by the Appellant. After hearing both sides and examining the record, the Tribunal expressed its inability to understand why the benefit was denied when the authority was satisfied with the annual certificate provided by the Appellant.

The Tribunal noted that if the facts and figures in the annual certificate did not cover the entire year's transactions, then it could be questioned. Since the annual certificate was deemed acceptable and the Revenue had not provided reasons why the lack of consignments in the certificates should lead to the denial of benefits, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant. Citing the Appellant's references to previous cases, the Tribunal directed the waiver of pre-deposit until the disposal of the appeal. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open Court.