2015 (9) TMI 105 - AT - Service Tax

GTA - Eligibility of Notification No.34/2004-ST dated-3/12/2004 and Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated-1/03/2006 - applicant could not justify their claim by filing sufficient evidences as the declaration on the respective consignment notes were not accepted by the department and its authenticity has been doubted - Held that - appellant has placed before us declarations received from the respective service providers, and in view of the aforesaid judgments the same could be considered in extending the exemption Notification. However, the said declarations require scrutiny/examination by the adjudicating authority. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is remitted to the adjudicating authority only for the purpose the scrutiny of the documents/evidences. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalty imposed under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
- Denial of abatement of 75% from the gross taxable value of transportation charges under Notification No.34/2004-ST and Notification No. 01/2006-ST.
- Authenticity of declarations on consignment notes and eligibility for exemption under the notifications.
- Consideration of general declarations from service providers as sufficient evidence.
- Request for remand for scrutiny of documents not presented before the adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses an application requesting the waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalty imposed under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The applicant received GTA services during a specific period and was required to discharge service tax on these services. The issue arose when the abatement of 75% from the gross taxable value of transportation charges, as per Notification No.34/2004-ST and Notification No. 01/2006-ST, was denied. The denial was based on the lack of required declarations on the consignment notes issued by transport agencies. The applicant argued that the consignment note stamps with declarations were genuine, and even general declarations from service providers should suffice, citing relevant judgments from the Tribunal.

The Revenue contended that the documents presented by the applicant were not previously submitted to the adjudicating authority or the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), necessitating detailed scrutiny. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, decided to proceed with the appeal and waived the pre-deposit requirement with mutual consent. The main issue revolved around the eligibility for exemption under the aforementioned notifications based on the authenticity of declarations on consignment notes. The Tribunal noted that the declarations provided by the appellant needed scrutiny by the adjudicating authority, despite the judgments cited in support. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was remitted to the adjudicating authority for thorough examination of the documents and evidences. The appellant was to be granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing during this process, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand, thereby disposing of the Special Petition.