9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2007 to December, 2007 and discharged service tax on the value of such GTA services after availing the abatement of 75% on the gross taxable value, in terms of Notification No.1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. 2.2. Revenue issued them a demand notice proposing to deny the said abatement on the ground that they had not furnished necessary declaration of non-availment of CENVAT Credit and benefit of Notification No.12/2003-ST as prescribed thereunder, from the respective Goods Transport Agencies from whom they received the said services. The said demand was confirmed and penalties were imposed on the Respondent. 2.3. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Respondent filed an appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who had set aside the Order of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... integra. The Hon ble Tribunal in a series of cases has held that the abatement of 75% on the gross taxable value could not be disallowed on the ground that a general declaration has been filed by the respective Goods Transport Agencies without furnishing the same in the respective Consignment Notes. Recently, the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CST, Ahmedabad vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals [2012(27)STR 127(Guj.)] upholding the findings of the Tribunal, has allowed the abatement of CENVAT Credit to the extent of 75% on the basis of the general declarations filed by the respective Goods Transport Agencies. In support of his submission, he has also relied upon the following decisions:- (i) 2008(9) STR 530(Tri.-Ahmd.) CCE, Rajkot vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aration filed by GTA service provider, in compliance with the conditions of the said Notification. I find that the said issue is no more res integra and settled by now in the above-referred judgements. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that benefit of the Notification No.1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 could be allowed on the basis of a general declaration furnished by the GTA service provider. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the declarations filed by the Respondent had disallowed the abatement whenever deficiency was noticed, and ordered at Para 7(c) and (d) as follows:- a) b) c) For the four parties viz. M/s ABC Ltd. M/s Gati Courier, M/s Gati Ltd. and M/s Super Express & Cargo, as mentioned in the order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
