2016 (10) TMI 459 - AT - Service Tax

GTA service - eligibility to avail abatement of 75% of the value of the GTA Services as provided in Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 - subject to the condition that the no CENVAT Credit had been availed and benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. dated 20-6-2003 - Held that - the certificates issued by the GTA separately can also be considered as sufficient compliance of the said provisions. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the respondents are eligible for abatement of 75% of the value of GTA Services as per Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a dispute regarding the eligibility of the respondents to claim abatement of 75% of the value of GTA Services under Notification No. 32/2004-ST. The original adjudicating authority disallowed the abatement due to non-compliance with prescribed procedures. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, stating that the respondents had sufficiently complied with the provisions, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, including the case of Commissioner of Service Tax vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., where it was established that certain conditions for tax liability determination were not mandatory. The Tribunal emphasized that the requirements prescribed by the Board's Circular could not be used to deny substantive rights. Another case, Tax Appeal No. 523 of 2010, highlighted the importance of substantial compliance with procedures for claiming exemptions. The Tribunal's recent decision in Radhu Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise further supported the stance on compliance. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the present case concluded that separate certificates issued by the GTA could fulfill compliance requirements, leading the Tribunal to dismiss the Revenue's appeal and cross objection.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment showcases the interpretation and application of relevant legal principles, precedents, and procedural compliance in determining the eligibility for abatement of GTA Services under specific notifications. The Tribunal's reliance on past decisions and the Commissioner (Appeals)' detailed examination of the facts highlights the importance of procedural adherence and substantive rights in tax matters.