9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 876 - AT - Service TaxGTA service - Benefit of abatement of 75% under N/N. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 - denial on the ground that all the relevant LRs/consignment notes had not been scrutinized by him but the scrutiny was on sample basis - whether the respondents are entitled to the benefit of N/N. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 and N/N. 1/2006-ST dated 1.3.2006? - Held that - the appellants have submitted that they have followed the prescribed procedure in as much as the required declaration in terms of the Board s circular is there on the LR/consignment notes and sample copies of the same were put before the lower authority - However, the adjudicating authority chose to ignore the same and did not discuss the same in his findings - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Entitlement to benefit of Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 and Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 1.3.2006. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the payment of service tax on GTA Service by the Respondent after availing a 75% abatement on freight paid to the Goods Transport operator. The abatement was subject to conditions specified in Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004, which required the GTA to not avail credit on inputs or capital goods and not benefit from Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003. The adjudicating authority had confirmed a Service Tax demand against the Respondent, which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the Revenue filing an appeal. The main ground of the Revenue's appeal was that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not verified the relevant LRs to ensure compliance with the conditions of Notification No. 32/2004-ST. The Respondent argued that sample certificates issued by the GTA, showing non-availment of credit or exemption, were sufficient for compliance. They also cited relevant case law to support their position. The Tribunal examined whether the Respondent was entitled to the benefit of the aforementioned notifications. The Revenue contended that all LRs should have been scrutinized, not just on a sample basis. However, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing that the scrutiny of all LRs was not mandatory, citing a judgment by the Hon'ble Patna High Court. Therefore, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
|
