2019 (5) TMI 150 - AT - Service Tax

Reverse charge mechanism - transportation of goods of the appellants for the period 01.01.2005 to 31.01.2009, on the freight expenditure incurred by them - abatement under the Notification No. 32/2004-ST and No. 1/2006-ST - only inadvertence is the name of the signatory has not been indicated along with the signature - demand of service tax - HELD THAT - No doubt, as observed by the lower appellate authority, the name of the signatories who have issued certificates have not been indicated therein. However, there is no allegation made by the department about the genuineness of these documents. Exemption under Notification No. 32/2004-ST cannot be denied on such minor discrepancies. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Demand of service tax on reverse charge basis on transportation of goods for the period 01.01.2005 to 31.01.2009, denial of abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST and No.1/2006-ST, acceptance of declarations from transporters, imposition of penalties under various provisions of law, interpretation of CBEC Circular, eligibility for abatement, imposition of penalties under Section 77 and 78.

Analysis:

The dispute in this case revolved around the demand of service tax on a reverse charge basis on the transportation of goods by the appellants for a specific period. The department initiated proceedings proposing a demand amount, interest, and penalties under the law. The original authority confirmed the demand and denied the benefit of abatement under certain notifications due to lack of documentary evidence regarding the availing of duty credit related to the transportation. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal.

During the hearing, the appellants' advocate presented declarations from transporters stating the non-availment of Cenvat credit of duty for providing taxable services and the benefit of a specific notification. The advocate highlighted discrepancies in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s rejection of these declarations, emphasizing that the issue had been settled in favor of appellants in various cases.

After considering both sides, the Tribunal found that the appellants' advocate was correct. While acknowledging the absence of signatory names in the declarations, the Tribunal noted that the department did not question the authenticity of these documents. Relying on Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal concluded that minor discrepancies should not lead to the denial of exemptions under relevant notifications.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed with specific terms: the appellants were deemed eligible for the abatement, the paid tax amount after abatement was sustained, the remaining demand was set aside, and penalties under Section 77 and 78 were revoked due to the interpretative nature of the matter. The Tribunal emphasized that while the tax liability was upheld, penalties were unjustified in this scenario.

In summary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, recognizing their eligibility for abatement and overturning the penalties imposed, based on the interpretation of relevant notifications and the absence of evidence challenging the authenticity of the provided declarations.

---