2011 (3) TMI 912 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat credit documents - whether the abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 30.12.2004 can be denied on the ground that the declaration was not made by GTA providing services that the agency is not availing credit on inputs or capital goods or benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST in the consignment note - Assessee has produced a separate certificate from the GTA providing services and fairly admits that there was no declaration on the consignment notes but service provider has given general declaration that they were not availing cenvat credit on inputs/capital goods or benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST - Since the issue is already covered by the Tribunal decisions in the case of Bharat Sugar Mills (2009 -TMI - 34304 - CESTAT, KOLKATA) - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal, denial of abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST, validity of certificate from service provider, applicability of Tribunal decisions.

The judgment addresses the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal, where the Revenue sought condonation for an eight-day delay due to administrative difficulties. The delay was condoned by the Tribunal considering its minimal duration. Moving on, the main issue discussed pertains to whether abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST can be denied if the declaration was not made by the Goods Transport Agency (GTA) in the consignment note. The respondent argued that despite the absence of a declaration on the consignment notes, a separate certificate from the GTA confirmed non-availment of credit on inputs or capital goods. Citing previous Tribunal decisions like Bharat Sugar Mills and Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the respondent contended that the issue was settled in their favor.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the issue raised was not novel and had been previously addressed in various decisions. Given that the service providers had provided certificates stating non-availment of benefits related to inputs/capital goods or Notification No. 12/2003, the Tribunal referred to past cases like Bharat Sugar Mills and Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. where a similar view was upheld. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue, citing consistency with the decisions mentioned earlier.

In conclusion, the judgment primarily revolves around the condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the denial of abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST based on the absence of a specific declaration in the consignment notes. The validity of the certificate provided by the service provider, along with the applicability of past Tribunal decisions supporting the respondent's position, played a crucial role in the Tribunal's final decision to reject the Revenue's appeal.