2013 (4) TMI 672 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of abetment in terms of Notification No. 32/2004-ST - As per revenue transporters have not filed the requisite certificate and have not stamped the individual GRs, certifying that no credit stand availed by them on GTA services - Held that - In the case of Arani Agro Oil Industries Ltd. vs. CC, Visakhapatnam in 2011 (1) TMI 715 has observed that GTA service provider is not required to furnish evidence of non-availment of Cenvat scheme to qualify the benefit of Notification No. 32/2004-ST in as much as there is no such conditions in the notification for making declaration on each consignment note. In any view of the matter, we note that in the present case such certificates were produced by the GTA service provider. However, the same do not accepted by the lower authorities. Thus, the impugned orders is set aside and allow both the appeals with consequential relief to the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of abetment of 75% under Notification No. 32/2004-ST due to missing certificates from Goods Transport Agency (GTA)

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, delivered by Ms. Archana Wadhwa, addresses the issue of denial of abetment of 75% under Notification No. 32/2004-ST due to missing certificates from the Goods Transport Agency (GTA). The appellant was discharging their service tax liability on 25% of the gross value of the GTA services in compliance with the notification. However, proceedings were initiated against the appellant for not providing the necessary affidavit/certificate from the GTA indicating non-availment of credit on inputs or capital goods, as required by the notification.

The impugned orders denied the benefit of the notification based on the absence of certificates from the transporters, as mandated by a Board Circular. However, the Tribunal highlighted that the notification itself does not require the filing of such certificates or declarations on each consignment note. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions where it was held that the procedural requirements imposed by the circular go beyond the notification's scope and cannot be enforced as legislation. The Tribunal emphasized that the notification only necessitates non-availment of credit by the transport agencies, which was confirmed in various cases, some of which were approved by High Courts.

In the present case, the GTA service provider did produce certificates indicating non-availment of credit, but lower authorities rejected them for lacking specific details like GR numbers and consignment note numbers. The Tribunal disagreed with this reasoning, stating that if the GTA provider certifies non-availment of credit, the additional requirement of including the same declaration on each consignment note, as per the circular, cannot be enforced. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed both appeals, providing consequential relief to the appellant. The stay petition and appeals were granted in favor of the appellant.