2011 (10) TMI 86 - AT - Service Tax

Service Tax - GTA services - Notification No. 32/04-ST grants abatement to the extent of 75%, while discharging the Service Tax liability subject to certain conditions - certification by the GTA service provider to the extent that no modvat credit stands availed by him as also no benefit of notification No. 12/2003 - applicants have not produced such certificate by the transporters, the benefits stand denied to the appellants - Appellant contended that such certificates are not required to be given on each and every consignment note - Decided that set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for examining and verifying the said certificates and to re-decide the matter in the light of the precedent decisions of the Tribunal - appeal gets disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 32/04-ST regarding abatement of Service Tax liability based on certification requirement by GTA service provider.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, involved a crucial issue concerning the interpretation of Notification No. 32/04-ST, which grants abatement to the extent of 75% on Service Tax liability for recipients of GTA services, subject to specific conditions. The appellants in this case were denied the benefit of the notification due to their failure to produce a certificate from the transporters certifying that no modvat credit was availed by them and that they did not benefit from Notification No. 12/2003. The appellants argued that as per Tribunal decisions, a consolidated certificate from the transporter would suffice, and it was not necessary to provide certificates for each consignment note. However, they admitted that they were unable to produce the certificate before the lower authorities but had obtained it subsequently.

The representative Chartered Accountant for the appellants highlighted the Tribunal's previous decisions supporting the consolidated certificate's validity and argued that even though they now possessed the required certificate, they could not present it to the adjudicating authority during the initial proceedings. In light of these arguments, the Bench, led by Archana Wadhwa, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the original adjudicating authority. The purpose of this remand was for the authority to examine and verify the certificates now available with the appellants and to reconsider the case in accordance with the Tribunal's precedent decisions. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the conditions stipulated in the notification for availing the abatement benefit.

The judgment concluded by disposing of the stay petition and appeal in the manner described above, indicating a fair and just approach by the Tribunal in ensuring a thorough review of the case based on the newly available evidence. The decision underscored the significance of compliance with notification conditions and the need for proper documentation to support claims for abatement of Service Tax liability under the specified notifications.