2018 (8) TMI 1516 - AT - Service Tax

Liability of Service Tax - GTA services - claim of the appellant is that they are not liable for tax as they are not issued any consignment note and they are eligible for abatement of 75% of the amount of the freight paid by them to GTA - Held that - The appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of any evidences as to the claim of the appellant that they did not avail services of goods transport agency but owners of the individual tax to whom they have paid freight charges. Appeal memoranda is also devoid of any evidence to suggest that the appellant had declarations of transport agencies to indicate that they had not availed CENVAT credit on the capital goods which is requirement for claiming the abatement of 75% of the value of freight paid. The appellant has no case on merits - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Service tax liability on GTA services, absence of evidence supporting appellant's claim for abatement of tax.

Analysis:

1. Service Tax Liability on GTA Services:
The appeal was directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 32/2008 regarding service tax liability on GTA services. The appellant claimed they were not liable for tax as they did not receive any consignment note and were eligible for a 75% abatement on the freight amount paid to the GTA. However, the Tribunal noted the lack of evidence to support the appellant's claim. The appellant failed to provide any proof that they did not avail the services of a goods transport agency but instead paid freight charges to individual owners. Furthermore, the appeal memoranda did not contain any evidence indicating that the appellant had declarations from transport agencies confirming they did not utilize CENVAT credit on capital goods, a prerequisite for claiming the abatement of 75% of the freight value.

2. Absence of Evidence Supporting Appellant's Claim for Abatement of Tax:
The Tribunal highlighted the absence of evidence in the appeal memoranda to substantiate the appellant's assertions. Despite the appellant's argument, the Tribunal held that there was no merit in the appellant's case due to the lack of supporting evidence. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was rejected. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's failure to provide any evidence to support their claims led to the dismissal of the appeal. The decision was made based on the absence of any substantiating documentation in the appeal materials, indicating that the appellant did not have a strong case on merits.