2013 (11) TMI 1455 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service - Denail of abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 3.12.2004 and No.1/2006-ST dated 1.3.2006 - Held that - CBEC vide Circular dated 27.7.2005 clarified that a declaration by the GTA in the consignment note issued, may suffice for the purpose of availment of abatement by the person liable to pay service tax - declaration by the G.T.A. on the consignment note is not in mandatory terms, and is to the effect that such declaration by the G.T.A. on the consignment note may suffice. In other words, it is open to the discretion of the learned authorities under the Act to consider other mode and manner of evidence to consider the claims of the benefit of abatement. Sample copies of the certificates issued by the G.T.A., which were furnished before the learned Adjudicating Officer while claiming refund, are on record, and appears to the effect that such abatement had not been claimed by G.T.A. We are of the view that the same had adequate evidentiary value in a situation of confusion created by the authorities by issuance of the redundant circular dated 30-3-2005 - Following decision of CCE, Patna Vs. H.T. Media 2011 (4) TMI 172 - Patna High Court - It is appropriate that the matter should be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merit - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over demand of service tax on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service, denial of abatement under specific notifications, refusal of consolidated declarations, dismissal of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance with stay order.

Analysis:

1. Abatement Denial and Dispute over Service Tax:
The appellant, a dealer of excisable goods, faced a dispute regarding the demand of service tax on GTA service. The abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST and No.1/2006-ST was denied. The appellant contended that they had produced consolidated declarations as per CBEC circular dated 27.7.2005. They referred to a Tribunal case and a High Court decision supporting the allowance of consolidated declarations. The original authority had refused the declaration and confirmed a substantial demand of service tax, interest, and penalty for a specific period.

2. Arguments and Findings:
The appellant argued for the acceptance of consolidated declarations as per the circular and previous legal precedents. The Revenue, represented by the learned AR, supported the detailed findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the merit of the case. The Tribunal examined the CBEC circular dated 27.7.2005, which clarified the conditions for availing abatement in the taxable service of goods transport by road. The circular emphasized the sufficiency of a declaration by the GTA in the consignment note for the purpose of availing abatement by the person liable to pay service tax.

3. Legal Precedents and Prima Facie Case:
The judgment referred to a decision by the Hon'ble Patna High Court regarding the discretionary nature of the declaration by the GTA on the consignment note. The High Court emphasized that the evidence produced by the assessee could be considered in substantial compliance with the circular. Based on the legal precedents and the CBEC circular, the Tribunal found that the appellant had made out a prima facie case for the waiver of the entire amount of dues.

4. Remand and Directions:
In light of the legal analysis and precedents, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and directed a remand for hearing the appeal on merit without insisting on further deposits. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the appeal on its merits and directed the appellant to produce payment details before the Commissioner (Appeals) as required by law. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the stay application was disposed of accordingly.