2009 (7) TMI 803 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit GTA service abetment denied on the ground no endorsement on the consignment notes regarding the non-availment of Modvat/Cenvat credit on the capital goods - person who has received the services of the goods transport agency, could not have taken the credit of the capital goods/inputs pre-deposit waived

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay petition against waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalty.
2. Eligibility for abatement under Notification No. 32/04 due to lack of endorsement on consignment notes.
3. Interpretation of Tribunal decisions in similar cases.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore involved a stay petition concerning the waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalty amounts. The issue at hand revolved around the applicant's eligibility for abatement under Notification No. 32/04, primarily due to the absence of an endorsement on consignment notes regarding the non-availment of Modvat/Cenvat credit on capital goods and inputs by transporters. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by the learned Chartered Accountant, who cited precedents such as the case of CCE, Rajkot v. Sunhill Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. and Banner Pharmacaps Pvt. Ltd. v CCE&C, Vapi, to support the appellant's position.

Upon reviewing the records, the Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had denied abatement to the applicant based solely on the lack of endorsement on consignment notes regarding non-availment of inputs/capital goods stage credit. However, the Tribunal found merit in the applicant's argument that as a recipient of goods transport agency services, they could not have availed credit for capital goods/inputs. The Tribunal also acknowledged the applicability of the decision in the case of CCE, Rajkot v. Sunhill Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., supporting the appellant's position. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had established a prima facie case for the waiver of the pre-deposit amounts confirmed by the lower authorities. As a result, the application for waiver was allowed, and the recovery of the amounts was stayed pending the appeal's disposal.

In summary, the judgment addressed the issues of abatement eligibility, the significance of endorsements on consignment notes, and the impact of relevant Tribunal decisions on the case at hand. The decision highlighted the importance of legal interpretations and precedents in determining the outcome of the appeal regarding the waiver of pre-deposit amounts for service tax and penalty.