2009 (8) TMI 410 - AT - Service Tax

Transport of goods- Notification No. 32/2004 dated 3.12.2004- Assessee was recipient of services of a goods transport agency. It had discharged service tax liability on 25 per cent of value of services by availing of benefit of abatement under Notification No. 32/2004, dated 3.12.2004. Adjudicating Authority denied abatement on the ground that as per requirement of above notification assessee had not produced any certificate or declaration by transport agency nor any consignment notes and, accordingly confirmed demand. On appeal, assessee produced evidence by way of original notarized affidavit, certifying payment of transport charges to transporters with required declaration as prescribed under Notification No. 32/2004-ST, dated 3.12.2004. Assessee also requested for time to produce certificates/affidavits in respect of cases where transporters had not given same. Commissioner (Appeals) held that assessee was entitled to abatement in respect of affidavit filed by various transporters, however, he held that assessee was not entitled to any abatement on value for which assessee had failed to produce declaration even belatedly. Held that- order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld.

Summary

Issues involved: Determination of entitlement to abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST for Service Tax on transporting agency services.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue filed a stay petition and appeal against an order-in-appeal regarding the entitlement of the respondents to abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST for Service Tax on transporting agency services.
2. The Tribunal dismissed the stay petition as the issue was covered by previous Tribunal decisions and proceeded with the appeal.
3. The issue revolved around whether the respondents could avail abatement (75% of the value) under Notification No. 32/2004-ST. The adjudicating authority denied the benefit due to lack of certification or consignment notes from the transportation agency. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order.
4. The argument presented was that the respondents did not follow the procedure laid down by the notification and circular, emphasizing the necessity of a certification fulfilling specific conditions before availing the benefit.
5. The consultant cited various Tribunal cases supporting the assessee's entitlement to abatement, emphasizing the settled nature of the issue in favor of the assessee.
6. The Tribunal considered submissions from both sides and reviewed the records, highlighting the Commissioner (Appeals)'s relevant findings favoring the appellants' position.
7. The Commissioner (Appeals) based the decision on relevant notifications and circulars, concluding that the intention was not to provide double benefits and that the abatement should not be denied if the transporter had not availed any benefits. The appellants provided evidence through affidavits, making them eligible for abatement.
8. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, noting that it aligned with previous Tribunal decisions that settled the law on the issue, with no contrary decisions presented by the Revenue.
9. Consequently, the Tribunal found the impugned order correct, free from infirmity, and upheld it, rejecting the appeal.