2012 (6) TMI 333 - AT - Service Tax

GTA service - service tax abatement denied for the period January 2005 to March 2009 on the ground that the consignment notes did not have the declaration that the GTA service provider had not availed the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003 and had not taken cenvat credit - Held that - There are several decisions wherein a view has been taken that it is not essential such a declaration has to be given in the consignment notes but separate declaration would also serve the purpose. Also after 01.3.2008, notification was amended and the requirement of declaration was taken away. Matter remanded to original adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication.

Summary

Issues:
Service tax abatement denial for the period January 2005 to March 2009 based on declaration in consignment notes and certificates produced, imposition of penalties under Section 78 and Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994.

Service Tax Abatement Denial:
The appellant faced a demand for service tax of Rs. 3,34,704/- with interest, contending that they were not eligible for the 75% abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST. The issue revolved around the absence of specific declarations in consignment notes regarding the GTA service provider's benefit availed under Notification No. 12/2003 and cenvat credit. The appellant argued that separate declarations should suffice, citing precedents. However, discrepancies in the certificates submitted, including incorrect notification numbers and dates, led to the denial of abatement. The appellant sought reconsideration, highlighting rectifiable mistakes, payment of service tax by the GTA service provider, and amendments post-March 2008 eliminating declaration requirements. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a proper opportunity for the appellant to present their case.

Imposition of Penalties:
Penalties under Section 78 and Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 were imposed on the appellant in addition to the service tax demand. The Tribunal, after considering submissions and documents presented at the appellate stage, found discrepancies and errors in the appellant's submissions before the original adjudicating authority. Despite acknowledging the need for waiver of pre-deposit to consider the appeal, the Tribunal upheld the penalties. However, the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for fresh adjudication implies a potential reevaluation of the penalties in light of the revised decision on the service tax abatement issue.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad highlights the key issues of service tax abatement denial and imposition of penalties under the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for fresh adjudication signifies a significant development in the case, offering the appellant an opportunity to address the discrepancies and rectifiable mistakes in their submissions and potentially impact the outcome of both the service tax demand and penalties imposed.