2014 (6) TMI 347 - AT - Service Tax

Goods transport agency service (GTA) - Abatement of 75% as per Notification 32/2004 - endorsement not on the transport document or consignment - Held that - appellant availed goods transport agency service and paid the Service Tax as per the Service Tax Rules, 1994 as service recipient. Although there is no endorsement on the consignment that the transporter has not availed Cenvat credit but it is implied that when the transporter has not paid any Service Tax, question of availment of input/input Service Tax credit does not arise. In view of these observations, we do not find any merit in the impugned order. Therefore, impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Applicability of abatement under Notification 32/2004 for Service Tax paid by a goods transport agency as a service recipient.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal filed by the appellants along with a stay application. Despite the absence of representation from the appellant, a request was made to decide the matter on merits. The appellant had paid Service Tax under Rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 on goods transport agency services, claiming a 75% abatement as per Notification 32/2004. However, the abatement was denied as there was no endorsement on the transport document or consignment indicating that the transporter had not availed Cenvat credit of inputs or input services. This denial led to the issuance of a show-cause notice and subsequent confirmation of demands, prompting the appeal before the tribunal.

Upon hearing the arguments presented by the ld. AR, the tribunal determined that the appeal could be disposed of at that stage. The tribunal noted that the appellant had availed goods transport agency services and paid Service Tax as a service recipient. While there was no explicit endorsement regarding the non-availment of Cenvat credit by the transporter, it was implied that if the transporter had not paid any Service Tax, the question of availing input or input Service Tax credit did not arise. Based on these observations, the tribunal found no merit in the impugned order. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with any consequential relief deemed necessary.

In conclusion, the tribunal's decision revolved around the interpretation of Notification 32/2004 in the context of Service Tax paid by a goods transport agency as a service recipient. The absence of a specific endorsement regarding the non-availment of Cenvat credit did not preclude the applicability of the abatement, as it was inferred that the transporter had not paid any Service Tax. This interpretation led to the setting aside of the initial order and the allowance of the appeal with appropriate relief.