2018 (8) TMI 1019 - AT - Service Tax

GTA Services - Exemption/abatement under Notification No.32/2004-ST dt. 03/12/2004 - exemption/abatement was denied to the appellant for the reason that the appellant has not provided the declaration from GTA as observed by the Commissioner(Appeals) - Held that - The appellant has given the declaration from the GTA for non-availment of CENVAT credits on inputs and input services which is on record and therefore the appellants being service receiver are eligible for CENVAT credit on the service tax paid by them - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of exemption/abatement under Notification No.32/2004-ST due to lack of declaration from Goods Transport Agency (GTA).

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the Commissioner(Appeals) order denying exemption/abatement to the appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, for services received from a transport agency. The appellant contended that they had submitted a declaration from the GTA regarding non-availment of CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods, making them eligible for abatement under Notification No.32/2004-ST. The appellant cited various judicial precedents supporting their position, emphasizing that the declaration need not be on each consignment note but could be in general or on the GTA's letterhead.

The appellant's counsel argued that the impugned order was legally unsustainable and contrary to established judicial precedents. The appellant had provided declarations from multiple GTAs, as evidenced by annexed appeal papers, confirming non-availment of CENVAT credit. Relying on decisions like CCE, Patna Vs. HT Media and others, the appellant asserted their eligibility for abatement based on the GTA declarations. In contrast, the learned AR supported the findings of the impugned order.

After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed furnished declarations from GTAs regarding non-availment of CENVAT credits on inputs and input services. Citing the precedents mentioned earlier, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant, as a service receiver, was entitled to CENVAT credit on the service tax paid. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal of the appellant was allowed based on the principles established in the referenced decisions.

The Tribunal's decision, delivered on 31/07/2018, highlighted the importance of GTA declarations in determining eligibility for CENVAT credit under Notification No.32/2004-ST. By upholding the appellant's position and relying on established legal precedents, the Tribunal clarified the criteria for availing abatement in cases involving services provided by GTAs to manufacturers of excisable goods.