2015 (1) TMI 1258 - AT - Service Tax

Service tax on GTA - reverse charge - each of the consignment note issued by the respective Transporters did not bear the declaration of non-availment of CENVAT Credit and also the benefit under Notification No.12/03-ST dated 20.06.2003 on the face of it - Held that - the declarations filed by the goods transport agencies (GTA) in their letter-heads or in the respective payment bills certifying that they have not availed CENVAT Credit on inputs or capital goods nor availed the benefit of exemption Notification 12/2003-ST dated 20-06.2003 should have been accepted by the department - Matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against Orders-in-Original involving denial of abatement under Notification No.32/2004-ST and 01/2006-ST for Goods Transport Agency (GTAs) service due to missing declaration of non-availment of CENVAT Credit and benefit under Notification No.12/03-ST on consignment notes.

Analysis:
The Appeals were filed against Orders-in-Original due to the denial of abatement under Notification No.32/2004-ST and 01/2006-ST for GTAs service. The Appellant had discharged service tax after availing a 75% abatement but faced demands as each consignment note lacked the required declaration of non-availment of CENVAT Credit and benefit under Notification No.12/03-ST. The Appellant later submitted a general declaration stating non-availment of benefits in all invoices. The Tribunal had previously allowed the Appellant's appeals in a similar situation and remanded the case for document verification.

The Revenue did not object to remanding the case, and after hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal referred to previous judgments. The Tribunal noted that the format for the required certificate was not prescribed in the notifications, and certificates on GTA letterheads were deemed sufficient. The Tribunal emphasized that the department cannot insist on declarations on each consignment note. The Tribunal agreed with previous judgments that in the absence of a specific format requirement, the department's insistence on declarations on each consignment note was legally unsustainable. Therefore, the declarations by GTAs on their letterheads or payment bills should have been accepted for extending the abatement benefits under the notifications.

Based on the above findings and legal principles, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner. Consequently, the orders were set aside, and the Appeals were allowed. Following the decision, the Appeals were remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision in line with the Tribunal's observations. The impugned Orders were set aside, and the Appeals were allowed by way of remand.