2013 (6) TMI 201 - AT - Service Tax

GTA Service - Exemption - declaration for non availing cenvat credit by the transporters - Held that - In absence of any particular format prescribed under the respective notifications, the department insisting for declaration, on each consignment note for allowing the abatement under the said Notifications is unsustainable in law. In these circumstances, the declarations filed by the goods transport agencies (GTA) in their letter-heads or in the respective payment bills certifying that they have not availed Cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods nor availed the benefit of exemption Notification 12/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003 should have been accepted by the department in extending the benefit of Notification No. 32/2003-S.T. and 1/2006-S.T. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Issues:
- Eligibility of abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. and Notification No. 1/2006-S.T.
- Compliance with declaration requirements by goods transport agencies for availing abatement.
- Interpretation of Circulars and Notifications related to availing abatement.
- Acceptance of declarations by goods transport agencies for claiming benefit under the Notifications.

Analysis:
1. Eligibility of Abatement: The appeals revolved around the eligibility of abatement of 75% from the gross taxable value of services rendered by a Goods Transport Agency (GTA) as allowed under Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. and Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. The dispute arose due to the requirement of a declaration by the GTA as prescribed by Circulars issued by the Board. The Revenue alleged that the appellants failed to produce declarations from the transport agencies in each consignment note, as required. However, the appellants argued that declarations provided by the transport agencies on their letter-heads and in payment bills sufficed for compliance. The Tribunal noted that the Circulars did not specify a particular format for the declarations, and relying on past judgments, held that the department's insistence on declarations on each consignment note was legally unsustainable.

2. Compliance with Declaration Requirements: The Revenue's contention was that the appellants did not fulfill the procedural requirements for availing the benefit of the Notifications as laid down in Circulars and Section 37B Order. The appellants, on the other hand, argued that the declarations furnished by the transport agencies were in line with the requirements specified by the Circulars and were acceptable for claiming the abatement. The Tribunal observed that the Board had issued clarifications acknowledging the difficulties faced by both the department and the assesses, allowing for a general declaration from the GTA to suffice for past cases as well.

3. Interpretation of Circulars and Notifications: The Tribunal analyzed the Circulars issued by the Board, noting that the Circulars did not mandate declarations on each consignment note for availing abatement under the Notifications. The Tribunal referred to past judgments where it was held that declarations on the GTA's letter-heads were adequate and that the department's insistence on declarations on each consignment note was not supported by law. The Tribunal emphasized that in the absence of a prescribed format under the Notifications, the department's requirement for declarations on each consignment note was unjustified.

4. Acceptance of Declarations: The Tribunal ultimately concluded that the declarations provided by the GTA on their letter-heads and in payment bills, certifying non-availment of Cenvat credit and benefits under specific Notifications, should have been accepted by the department for extending the benefit of the Notifications. The Tribunal found no merit in the orders passed by the Commissioner and set them aside, allowing the appeals in favor of the appellants. The judgments cited in support of this decision highlighted the sufficiency of declarations provided by the transport agencies for claiming abatement under the relevant Notifications.

← Previous Next →