2011 (1) TMI 753 - AT - Service Tax

Demand - GTA services - Notification No. 32/04-ST dated 3.12.2004 - Circular No. B-1/6/05-TRU dated 27.7.05 - The fact of non-availment of cenvat credit etc. can be proved by any manner - in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vapi Vs Unimark Remedies Ltd reported in - (2008 -TMI - 34416 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD), it has been that the Notification does not require consignment -wise declaration on consignment notes - As the issue is covered in favour of the respondents by above referred decisions of the Tribunal, we find no infirmity in the view adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) - Appeal is rejected

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Notification No. 32/04-ST regarding abatement on service tax for goods transport agency services due to lack of proper declaration format.

In this case, the main issue revolves around the interpretation of Notification No. 32/04-ST, which grants abatement on taxable services for goods transport agencies. The respondents, liable for service tax on received services, claimed the benefit of the notification. The crux of the matter was the requirement of a declaration in a specific format to avail the abatement. The Revenue contended that due to the absence of the required declaration format, the respondents were not entitled to the 75% abatement. This led to proceedings against the respondents with a show cause notice proposing a demand. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned the order, emphasizing that the goods transport agency had indeed provided declarations meeting the notification's conditions. The Commissioner held that the absence of a specified format for the declaration did not invalidate it, and the method of proving non-availment of credit could be flexible. The Commissioner also highlighted that the Revenue did not dispute the non-availment of certain benefits by the goods transport agency.

The Tribunal, after considering various precedents, including decisions in similar cases, upheld the Commissioner's decision. The Tribunal cited cases where the requirement of a consignment-wise declaration on consignment notes was not mandatory under the notification. The Tribunal emphasized that a declaration proving non-availment of credit, even if not on the consignment notes, was sufficient to claim the benefits of Notification No. 32/04. The Tribunal's decision aligned with previous rulings, indicating that the issue was settled in favor of the respondents. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the view adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals). The judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of the notification's requirements and the flexibility in proving compliance with the conditions for availing abatement on service tax for goods transport agency services.