9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 730 - AT - Service TaxAvailment of Cenvat credit - Benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-S.T., dated 1-3-2006 - GTA service - Notification No. 12/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003 - Held that - appellants have produced on record sample certificate by the transporter declaring that they have neither availed Cenvat credit of duty paid on any inputs or capital goods used for providing transport services nor benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003. The Tribunal in its various decisions has held that such type of declaration is sufficient and there is no need to give declaration on each and every consignment note inasmuch as there is no such requirement in the notification. Otherwise also, we find that when the transporters are not paying service tax, the question of availment of credit and the benefit of Notification does not arise - Following decision of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-II 2010 (12) TMI 786 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , U.P. State Sugar Corporation v. CCE, Meerut 2008 (9) TMI 244 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and CCE, Rajkot v. Sunhil Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (12) TMI 24 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. regarding abatement of service tax for GTA services when recipient avails credit for other services. Analysis: The appellants were recipients of GTA services and availed the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. providing abatement of 75% of the service value. However, a show cause notice alleged that since they had availed credit for various other services, they were not entitled to the abatement under the said notification. The impugned order confirmed the demand and penalty, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The issue revolved around the interpretation of the Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. and whether the appellants, as service recipients, could avail abatement while also claiming credit for other services. The Tribunal referred to past decisions, such as Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. CCE, U.P. State Sugar Corporation v. CCE, and CCE, Rajkot v. Sunhil Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., which clarified that the condition of non-availment of credit related to the service provider, not the recipient. Therefore, the availment of credit by the service recipient should not be a ground for denying the abatement under the notification. Moreover, the appellants provided a sample certificate from the transporter stating that they had not availed Cenvat credit or the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. The Tribunal held that such a declaration was sufficient, and there was no requirement for declarations on each consignment note. Additionally, since the transporters were not paying service tax, the question of credit availment and notification benefits did not arise. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the denial of the abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. was unjustified, leading to setting aside the impugned order and granting relief to the appellants. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, disposing of the stay petitions accordingly. The judgment clarified the applicability of Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. in cases where service recipients avail credit for other services, emphasizing that such credit availment should not impact the entitlement to abatement under the notification.
|
