2012 (8) TMI 313 - AT - Service Tax

Wrong availment of benefit of Notification No.32/2004-ST - appellant had not produced declaration of non-availment of CENVAT Credit on the inputs as well as capital goods - Held that - Once the declaration has been filed by GTA on their letter-head as regards non-availment of CENVAT Credit, the benefit of Notification No.12/2003-ST should not be denied. In this case which is in our hand, it is undisputed that the appellant had filed the declaration to the adjudicating authority - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax liability.
2. Benefit of Notification No.32/2004-ST and requirement of declaration on consignment note.
3. Interpretation of Board's Circular No.B1/6/2005-TRU regarding declaration of non-availment of CENVAT Credit.
4. Comparison with precedent case law - Cadila Healthcare Ltd.
5. Tribunal's decision on the appeal and setting aside of the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The Stay Petition was filed seeking waiver of pre-deposit of the Service Tax liability confirmed by the adjudicating authority. The appellant claimed to have availed the benefit of Notification No.32/2004-ST but did not provide the required declaration of non-availment of CENVAT Credit on the consignment note.

2. The issue revolved around the necessity of providing a declaration on each consignment note as per Board's Circular No.B1/6/2005-TRU. The appellant argued that declarations from various road lines were submitted to the lower authorities, while the adjudicating authority based its demand on the absence of individual declarations on each consignment note.

3. The Tribunal considered the interpretation of the Board's circular and previous case law, particularly the decision in Cadila Healthcare Ltd. The Tribunal noted that in similar situations, where the GTA had provided a declaration on non-availment of CENVAT Credit, the benefit of the notification should not be denied. In this case, the appellant had indeed filed the required declaration with the adjudicating authority.

4. Citing their own precedent in Cadila Healthcare Ltd., the Tribunal found that the impugned order was not sustainable. The Tribunal concluded that the demand and confirmation of Service Tax liability solely based on the absence of declarations on each consignment note was not justified, especially when the necessary declaration had been provided to the adjudicating authority.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant. The decision highlighted the importance of compliance with notification requirements and the significance of providing necessary declarations to support claims for benefit under relevant provisions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision in the case.