9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 377 - AT - Service TaxService tax on GTA services - availing the abatement of 75% on the gross taxable value in terms of Notification No.1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 - denial of abatement on general declaration filed by GTA service provider - period from April, 2007 to December, 2007 - Held that - Recently, the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CST, Ahmedabad vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals 2013 (1) TMI 353 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT has allowed the abatement of CENVAT Credit to the extent of 75% on the basis of the general declarations filed by the respective Goods Transport Agencies. Also see CCE, Rajkot vs. Sunhill Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (12) TMI 24 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD , CCE, Vapi vs. Neral Paper Mills P. Ltd 2008 (12) TMI 121 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.14/SLG/2011 dated 30.03.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal-IV), Kolkata. 2. Denial of abatement on GTA services due to lack of necessary declaration of non-availment of CENVAT Credit and benefit of Notification No.12/2003-ST. 3. Dispute over the legality of a general declaration filed by the Respondent under Notification No.1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. 4. Admissibility of 75% abatement on the gross taxable value for discharging service tax on GTA service based on general declarations filed by Goods Transport Agencies. 5. Payment of service tax and interest by the Appellant following the Order-in-Appeal. 6. Entitlement of Respondent to avail the benefit of abatement of 75% on the gross taxable value as per Notification No.1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. Analysis: 1. The Appellant received GTA services and discharged service tax with a 75% abatement based on Notification No.1/2006-ST. Revenue issued a demand notice due to the absence of necessary declarations from Goods Transport Agencies, leading to penalties on the Respondent. 2. The Respondent appealed the decision, resulting in the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowing the appeal. The Revenue challenged this decision before the Tribunal, arguing that the abatement was not valid without specific declarations on Consignment Notes as per the Notification. 3. The Respondent's consultant contended that the abatement based on general declarations was acceptable, citing various judgments supporting this view. The consultant also addressed the issue of double payment of service tax, clarifying the actions taken by the Appellant. 4. The Tribunal analyzed whether the Respondent could avail the 75% abatement on the gross taxable value using general declarations, as per Notification No.1/2006-ST. The Tribunal found that the issue had been settled in previous judgments, upholding the validity of abatement based on such declarations. 5. The Tribunal upheld the ld. Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, noting that the Respondent had paid the service tax and interest as per the Order-in-Appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating it lacked merit, and allowed consequential relief for the Respondent as per the law. 6. The judgment concluded by affirming the decision of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissing the Revenue's appeal, thereby confirming the Respondent's entitlement to the abatement as per Notification No.1/2006-ST.
|
