2009 (8) TMI 90 - AT - Service Tax

GTA Service Declaration for availing abatement held that - It is not understood how the adjudicating authority in the impugned order has placed reliance on a Letter No.V/DGST/3-GTO/02/ 2005 dt.30.3.05 of DG Service Tax which was subsequently withdrawn on 11.4.05 ignoring the Board s Circular No.5//1/2007-STl dt.12.3.07 - In fact this observation of the adjudicating authority is misplaced; as it is not on this issue that demand of service tax was raised under the Show Cause Notice dt.27.2.08 but rather on the grounds that the service receiver was not eligible for 75% exemption from payment of service tax because the requirement as clarified by the Board under Circular No.B1/6/2005-TRU dt.27.7.05 was not fulfilled on consignment notes received by the appellants. benefit of abatement allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No.01/2006-ST for abatement eligibility
Procedural compliance with declaration requirements under the notification

Interpretation of Notification No.01/2006-ST for abatement eligibility:
The judgment involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of the appellants for abatement under Notification No.01/2006-ST. The impugned order raised concerns about the appellants' failure to provide justifying declarations as required by the notification. The appellants argued that they had submitted declarations from service providers, which the adjudicating authority did not consider. The appellants later furnished additional declarations from transporters covering all transport documents. The tribunal noted that the wording of the declarations substantially complied with the notification's conditions, leading to a favorable view towards granting them the benefit of the abatement. The tribunal emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural requirements for availing such benefits under the notification.

Procedural compliance with declaration requirements under the notification:
The Revenue's objection centered on the adequacy of a general declaration by the transporter, contending that it did not fulfill the procedural aspect satisfactorily. However, the tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had thoroughly discussed and addressed this issue. Since there was no dispute regarding the appellants' entitlement to the abatement, the tribunal deemed the denial of benefits based on procedural grounds unjustified. Consequently, the tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and rejected it. The judgment underscored the significance of procedural compliance in determining eligibility for exemptions or benefits under relevant notifications.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the interpretation of Notification No.01/2006-ST and the importance of procedural compliance with declaration requirements for availing abatement benefits. The tribunal's decision favored the appellants based on the substantial compliance with notification conditions and emphasized the need for adherence to procedural aspects in claiming such benefits.