9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 782 - AT - Service TaxDenial of benefit of abatement - GTA service - Whether appellant is entitled to take 75% abatement as per the provisions contained in Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01/3/06 - Held that - under this notification transporters providing services to the appellant should give a declaration that no Cenvat credit of input services is taken. It is the argument of the appellant that subsequent Notification No. 13/08-ST dated 01/3/08 did not have any condition that any service tax credit on input services has been taken by the transporters and that subsequent Notification No. 13/08-ST convey the intention of the Government for earlier Notification No. 1/2006-ST also. The argument made by the appellant is required to be rejected on the grounds that the Notification issued on 01/3/08 cannot be made applicable to the service tax liability for the period 01/1/05 to 31/1/08 when Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01/3/06 was operative. When Notification No. 1/2006-ST talks of not taking of Cenvat credit on input services taken by the transporter then it is obligatory on the part of the appellant or transporter to at least give a general declaration to the effect that no service credit of input services is taken by the transporters - Decided against assessee.
Issues: Service tax liability on transport of goods by road (GTC services) and entitlement to 75% abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST.
Analysis: 1. Service Tax Liability: The appeal was filed concerning the service tax liability on the transport of goods by road services received by the appellant for a specific period. The appellant did not dispute the service tax liability but claimed the benefit of 75% abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST, which was later withdrawn by Notification No. 13/2008-ST. 2. Adjournment Request: During the hearing, the appellant's Authorized Representative sought an adjournment citing the unavailability of their Counsel due to professional commitments related to a Supreme Court case. However, the reasons provided were deemed unjustifiable, and the adjournment request was rejected. 3. Arguments by Revenue: The Revenue contended that the 75% abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-ST is applicable if the transporter does not avail Cenvat credit of input services for providing GTA services. The Revenue highlighted the lack of documentary evidence or a certificate proving the non-availing of Cenvat credit by the transporters serving the appellant. 4. Decision and Rationale: After hearing both sides and reviewing the case records, the Tribunal deliberated on the entitlement of the appellant to the 75% abatement. It was noted that the appellant failed to provide a declaration regarding the non-availing of Cenvat credit by the transporters, as required by Notification No. 1/2006-ST. The argument that subsequent Notification No. 13/08-ST should apply retroactively was dismissed, as it cannot impact the service tax liability for the period when Notification No. 1/2006-ST was in force. The Tribunal upheld the Adjudicating Authority's finding that without the necessary certificate, the appellant's claim for abatement cannot be accepted, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. 5. Final Decision: Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, affirming the Adjudicating Authority's orders.
|
