2013 (12) TMI 973 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - GTA Service - Abatement under Notification No.32/2004 - Held that - CBEC has issued instructions that consolidated declaration from the concerned transport operators would be sufficient for granting abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST. This declaration can be produced even at a later stage. Most of the transport operators are individuals who are registered for payment of any service tax or excise duty. Since this condition is with reference to the transporter and not with reference to applicant, the applicant should be given more time to produce necessary evidence. Therefore, at the present stage, we consider it proper to waive the requirement of predeposit of dues arising from the impugned order for admission of the appeal and stay its collection during the pendency of the appeal - Prima facie case in favour of assessee - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Service tax liability on GTA service as a recipient of service; Jurisdictional issue regarding centralized registration for service tax payment; Compliance with conditions of Notification No. 32/2004-ST for availing abatement.

Service Tax Liability on GTA Service: The dispute in this case revolves around the service tax payable by the applicant as a recipient of GTA service. The applicant had paid the service tax after availing abatement as per Notification No.32/2004. The Revenue contended that the abatement under the notification is only available if the transporter had not availed CENVAT credit, and the applicant failed to provide evidence to support this claim. However, the Tribunal noted that the CBEC had issued instructions stating that a consolidated declaration from the transport operators would suffice for granting abatement, and this declaration could be produced at a later stage. As most transport operators are individuals registered for service tax or excise duty, the Tribunal decided to waive the requirement of predeposit of dues arising from the impugned order for the admission of the appeal and stayed the collection during the appeal's pendency.

Jurisdictional Issue: The applicant argued in the Memorandum of Appeal that they were centrally registered for service tax payment at Alleppey, and therefore, the proceedings initiated by a different Commissionerate at Tuticorin were not sustainable. The Revenue, however, contended that the centralized registration was obtained after the show-cause notice was issued and thus would not absolve the applicant of the tax liability before obtaining such registration. The Tribunal acknowledged this point but emphasized that the applicant had not provided proof of compliance with the conditions in the notification. Despite this, considering the nature of the requirement being related to the transporter and not the applicant, the Tribunal decided to grant more time to the applicant to produce the necessary evidence, thereby allowing the stay application.

In conclusion, the Tribunal, presided over by Shri. Mathew John, considered the submissions made by the learned AR and decided to waive the predeposit requirement for the admission of the appeal and stay the collection of dues during the appeal's pendency. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of the transporter's compliance with the conditions for availing abatement and granted the applicant more time to provide the necessary evidence, ensuring a fair opportunity for the applicant to establish their case.