2011 (10) TMI 104 - AT - Service Tax

Abatement in terms of notification No. 32/2004-ST and 1/2006-ST - GTA services - produced on record a declaration certifying that no credit stands availed by them and the benefit of notification No.12/03 also does not stand availed - objection of the Revenue is that transporters have made an annual declaration instead of making declaration on each relevant consignment - Decided that notification itself nowhere lays down as to how the said declaration are required to be made. It is only by one of Board s Circular and clarifications that the Revenue is insisting on making declaration on each and every consignment - As in the case CCE& ST vs. Neral Paper Mills Pvt.Ltd. 2010 (9) TMI 297 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - no reasons to deny the abatement to the appellants and uphold the impugned orders. - against the favour of appealant

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of abatement benefit due to the manner of declaration made by GTA service recipients.
2. Interpretation of notification requirements regarding declaration for availing abatement benefit.
3. Consistency of lower authorities' decision with precedent tribunal judgments.
4. Applicability of annual declaration for abatement eligibility.

Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, involved the issue of denial of abatement benefit to GTA service recipients based on the manner of declaration made. The appellants, as GTA service recipients, had availed abatement benefits during the relevant period of 2006-2008. The benefit was subject to conditions, including not availing credit on inputs or capital goods and not benefiting from specific notifications. The lower authorities denied abatement, citing that declarations were made annually, not on each consignment.

The Tribunal noted that the transporters had indeed made declarations as required, and the Revenue did not contest the non-availment of credit or benefits. The dispute centered on the form of declaration, with the Revenue insisting on consignment-specific declarations. The appellants argued that annual declarations sufficed to prevent double benefits. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that the notification did not specify the form of declarations. The Revenue's insistence was based on a technicality and not the notification's language.

Furthermore, the Tribunal referenced various precedent decisions to support its ruling, highlighting that the issue was settled in favor of annual declarations. The judgments cited reinforced the position that annual declarations were sufficient for compliance. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no grounds to deny abatement to the appellants, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The stay petition and appeal were disposed of accordingly, affirming the validity of annual declarations for availing abatement benefits.