2009 (9) TMI 162 - AT - Service Tax

Whether abatement of 75% on the freight charges is available to the appellants in terms of Notification No. 32/2004 dated 3-12-2004 or not - It is the contention of the Revenue that the respondent has not followed the conditions laid down in the said notification inasmuch as the respondent should have placed the evidence in terms of declaration on the consignment notes issued by GTA concerned that the Modvat credit has not been availed. - Commissioner (Appeals) has followed the law as settled by various decisions of the Tribunal while allowing the assessee s appeal - Revenue has not brought out any evidence contrary to the findings which has been recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals). In view of this position we find that the impugned order is correct and does not suffer from any infirmity.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of Notification No. 32/2004 regarding abatement of 75% on freight charges for goods transport agency services.

Analysis:
The appellate tribunal heard a stay petition filed by the Revenue to stay the operation of Order-in-Appeal No. 6/2009 dated 27-2-2009. Despite the absence of the respondent, the tribunal decided to proceed with the appeal due to the narrow issue involved. The main issue was the benefit of abatement of 75% on freight charges to the respondent under Notification No. 32/2004. The Revenue contended that the respondent did not comply with the conditions of the notification, specifically regarding evidence on consignment notes to show non-availment of Modvat credit.

Upon reviewing the submissions and the impugned order, the tribunal noted that the issue revolved around the interpretation of Notification No. 32/2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) had considered the relevant provisions and previous tribunal decisions to determine the applicability of the abatement. The tribunal highlighted the conditions specified in the notification, emphasizing the requirement for a declaration on consignment notes regarding non-availment of credit on inputs or capital goods.

The tribunal referred to a judgment by CESTAT, Ahmedabad, which clarified the conditions for availing the benefit of Notification No. 32/2004. The tribunal concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the respondent, as a consignor, had not availed credit on inputs or capital goods for providing the taxable service, and therefore, the abatement was applicable. The tribunal found that the impugned order was in line with established law and previous decisions, dismissing the Revenue's appeal and allowing the respondent's appeal with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision based on the settled legal principles and the specific facts of the case. The tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with the conditions of the notification and verified that the respondent met the requirements for the abatement. The judgment provided clarity on the interpretation of Notification No. 32/2004 and affirmed the respondent's entitlement to the benefit of abatement on freight charges for goods transport agency services.