2015 (8) TMI 542 - AT - Service Tax

Benefit of abatement of 75% - whether the appellant as a recipient of GTA services is eligible for exemption under Notification No.32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 without fulfilling the conditions mentioned therein - absence of any declaration from the transport contractors regarding non-availment of CENVAT Credit and also that the declarations were not in respect of the units where the credit was availed - Held that - On perusal of the declaration forms which were produced by learned Counsel we find that the said declaration clearly indicates that the transport contractors had not availed CENVAT Credit or benefit of Notification 12/2003-ST and the said declarations also covers the period which is in dispute in these appeals. We also find that the declarations are on the specific depots of the appellant either Silvasa at Navi Mumbai or Haybunder Road. Though Haybunder Road is not specifically mentioned, it can be seen from the certificates that the location is mentioned as Lube Plant I and Lube Plant II - Declarations which were produced before us covers the period in question and the impugned orders which denied the benefit of Notification No.32/2004 are incorrect. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the appellant, as a recipient of GTA services, is eligible for exemption under Notification No.32/2004-ST without fulfilling the specified conditions.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a common order for multiple appeals concerning the eligibility of the appellant for exemption under Notification No.32/2004-ST. The issue revolves around whether the appellant, as a recipient of GTA services, can avail the exemption without meeting the conditions outlined in the notification. The lower authorities had previously ruled against the appellant, stating that the benefit of abatement of 75% of freight charges could not be availed due to the absence of declarations from transport contractors regarding non-availment of CENVAT Credit. However, upon reviewing the declaration forms submitted by the appellant's counsel, it was evident that the transport contractors had not availed CENVAT Credit or the benefit of Notification 12/2003-ST during the disputed period. The declarations specifically mentioned the depots of the appellant, including Silvasa at Navi Mumbai and Haybunder Road, with specific references to Lube Plant I and Lube Plant II at Haybunder Road.

The Tribunal found that the declarations produced covered the relevant period in question and that the impugned orders denying the benefit of Notification No.32/2004 were incorrect. Citing a previous case involving a similar issue, the Tribunal referred to the decision in Commissioner of Service Tax vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals, which was upheld by the Honorable High Court of Gujarat. Relying on this precedent and authoritative judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned orders were to be set aside. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and providing for consequential relief, if any. Additionally, the Cross Objection filed by the Revenue was also disposed of in the judgment.