2009 (9) TMI 300 - AT - Service Tax

GTA Services- Notification No. 32/2004-ST, dated 3.12.2004, 1/2006, dated 1.3.2006- Assessee, a recipient of goods transport service, availed benefit of abatement in terns of Notification No. 32/2004-ST, dated 3.12.2004 and Notification No. 1/2006, dated 1.3.2006 providing for exemption from payment of service tax of Rs. 75 per cent of gross amount charged by GTAS. Lower authorities disallowed said exemption on ground that as per requirement of above notifications, goods transport operators had not given undertaking that credit of duty paid on inputs or capital goods used for providing such taxable service was not taken, and that benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST, dated 20.6.2003 was not availed. Before Tribunal, assessee produced certain documents containing necessary undertaking from GTAS which were not produced before lower authorities. Held that the amount of service tax involved is only Rs. 20,143/- together with penalty and assessee had not substantiated its case before authorities below it was not a fit case for admission accordingly, was to be dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Disallowance of benefit of abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST and Notification No. 1/2006 for non-fulfillment of conditions.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the disallowance of the benefit of abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST and Notification No. 1/2006 due to the failure to fulfill certain conditions. The primary ground for disallowance was the non-fulfillment of the conditions stipulated in the notifications, specifically the requirement that the credit of duty paid on inputs or capital goods used for providing the taxable service was not taken, and the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST was not availed by the Goods Transport Operator (GTA). The documents submitted by the assessees, such as consignment notes, lorry receipts, and waybills, did not contain the necessary undertaking that the GTA did not avail of the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003. Both the adjudicating authority and the lower appellate authority confirmed the absence of such undertaking in the documents. Despite the submission by the counsel for the assessees that relevant transport documents contained the required undertaking, the tribunal noted that these documents were not presented before the authorities below. As a result, the benefit of the notifications could not be granted based on the grounds stated in the impugned order.

The tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lay with the assessees to substantiate their case before the authorities. Given that the amount of service tax involved was relatively low at Rs. 20,146, and considering that the assessees failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim, the tribunal concluded that it was not a suitable case for admission. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, along with the COD application and stay application. The decision underscores the importance of complying with the conditions specified in notifications to avail of tax benefits and the significance of providing adequate documentation to support claims during adjudication proceedings.