2011 (4) TMI 249 - AT - Service Tax

Pre-deposit of service tax and penalty - The appellants who are availing the services of Goods Transport Agencies (GTA) have been denied the abatement in terms of notification No. 32/2004-ST and 1/2006-ST on the ground that they have not produced the requisite documentary evidence to show that the transporters have not availed the benefit of modvat credit - Appellants submits that such evidences could not be produced before the Commissioner (Appeals) inasmuch as they lost their file during the relevant period - He submits that the said evidences are available with them now and if the matter is remanded the appellant would be in a position to satisfy the appellate authority in respect of the disputed issue - Thus set-aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication - Hence the appeal is dispose accordingly.

Summary

Issues: Denial of abatement under service tax notifications due to lack of documentary evidence.

In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, the issue revolved around the denial of abatement under service tax notifications to the appellants, who were availing services of Goods Transport Agencies (GTA). The denial was based on the appellants' failure to produce documentary evidence to demonstrate that the transporters had not availed the benefit of modvat credit. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had not provided any documentary evidence, certificate, or declaration from the transporter to prove compliance with the notification conditions. The absence of such evidence made it impossible to ascertain whether the conditions of the notification had been met. The appellants claimed that they were unable to produce the required evidence before the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the loss of their file during the relevant period. However, they asserted that they now possessed the necessary evidence and requested a remand to satisfy the appellate authority on the disputed issue.

The Tribunal considered the submissions of the appellants and the lack of objection from the learned DR. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication. This decision aimed to provide the appellants with an opportunity to present the various evidences required to establish compliance with the conditions specified in the relevant notifications. The stay petition and appeal were disposed of accordingly, allowing the appellants a chance to address the deficiency in documentary evidence and clarify their adherence to the notification requirements during the fresh adjudication process.