2012 (9) TMI 165 - AT - Service Tax

Demands are confirmed after denying the benefit of Notification No. 32/2004-S.T - benefit is denied on the ground that necessary declaration as required under the Notification is not on the consignment notes Held that - Board has issued a Circular No. 137/154/2008, dated 21-8-2008 wherein it has been clarified that general declaration under Notification No. 32/2004 is sufficient for availing the benefit of Notification - pre-deposit of dues is waived

Summary

Issues:
- Benefit of Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. denied
- Denial of benefit due to missing declaration on consignment notes

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, MUMBAI involved the issue of denying the benefit of Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. to the applicants. The Show Cause Notice was issued to the applicants for demanding service tax, alleging that as recipients of Goods Transport Agency Service, they were not entitled to the benefit of the Notification. The adjudicating authority initially held that the applicants were entitled to the benefit but later denied it on the grounds of a missing necessary declaration on the consignment notes. However, the Tribunal found that the applicants had filed a general declaration stating that they had not availed credit on input or capital goods and had not taken benefit under Notification No. 12/2003. The Tribunal referenced Circular No. 137/154/2008, clarifying that a general declaration sufficed for availing the benefit of Notification No. 32/2004. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the applicants had a strong case for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax, interest, and penalty during the appeal's pendency. As a result, the pre-deposit of dues was waived, and the recovery of the same was stayed during the appeal.

The judgment also addressed the issue of denial of benefit due to the missing declaration on the consignment notes. The Tribunal observed that as per Notification No. 32/2004-S.T., a specific declaration was required regarding the non-availment of credit on input and capital goods and the non-utilization of Notification No. 12/2003 benefits. While the applicants had provided a general declaration, the Tribunal, citing a relevant circular, deemed it sufficient for availing the Notification's benefits. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the absence of the specific declaration on the consignment notes should not preclude the applicants from enjoying the benefits under Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. The Tribunal allowed the stay petitions, indicating a favorable outcome for the applicants regarding the denial of benefits due to the missing declaration on the consignment notes.

In summary, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, MUMBAI addressed the issues of denying the benefit of Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. and the denial of benefits due to the absence of a specific declaration on the consignment notes. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicants, emphasizing the sufficiency of a general declaration for availing the Notification's benefits and subsequently waiving the pre-deposit of dues during the appeal process.