2008 (10) TMI 147 - AT - Service Tax

Recipients of services under the heading of Goods Transport Agent - benefit of abatement of 75% from the value of the Service Tax under Notification No. 32/2004 since appellant had produced the certificate from the service provider (transporter) about non-availment of input or capital gods credit benefit of notification is admissible - when the department noticed the lapse they registered themselves under the category of GTA services respondent paid tax on being pointed out there was no mala fide on the part of the respondent and therefore imposition of penalties is not at all justified

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 2/2008 (H-I) ST dated 26.3.2008.
2. Deemed services under the category of Goods Transport Agent (GTA).
3. Benefit of Notification No. 32/2004 for Service Tax payment.
4. Denial of abatement of 75% from the value of Service Tax.
5. Imposition of penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 2/2008 (H-I) ST dated 26.3.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals-I & III), Hyderabad. The respondents were recipients of services categorized under "Goods Transport Agent" (GTA) and were deemed to have provided services under Section 68 (2) of the Finance Act. Initially unregistered, they later registered under the GTA services category and paid Service Tax based on Notification No. 32/2004, which allowed payment on 25% of the freight value. The Revenue challenged this, claiming the conditions of the Notification were not met during payment, leading to the denial of the 75% abatement. Penalties were imposed under the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (A) dropped the proceedings after examining legal positions and declarations submitted by the respondents.

2. The Revenue contested the Commissioner (A)'s decision, arguing that the declarations submitted post-payment were an afterthought and not available during the benefit availing stage. The learned advocate cited precedents where similar situations were dealt with favorably for the appellants, emphasizing the need for certificates from service providers to claim abatement. The advocate also argued against the imposition of penalties, citing various case laws to support the absence of malafide intent on the respondent's part.

3. Considering the precedents and legal positions presented, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner (A)'s decision. The Tribunal noted that all relevant decisions were considered before dropping the proceedings, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (A)'s order, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling Notification conditions and providing necessary certificates for abatement claims. The appeal was dismissed, and the Revenue's contentions were not upheld.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on legal precedents and considerations.