9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement will be available to the appellant without requirement of any specific endorsement on every consignment note, but merely on general declaration from GTA. In the instant case, from the facts it is seen that the appellants have obtained such undertaking letters from concerned transporters. This being so, the confirmation of demand is in contradiction to the clarifications of CBEC themselves vide circular dated 21.08.2008. Demand set aside - Decided in favor of assessee. - ST/775/2009 - A/31916/2017 - Dated:- 15-11-2017 - Mr. M. V. Ravindran, Member ( Judicial ) And Mr. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member(Technical) ShriP. Prabhakar Murthy, Advocate for the Appellant ShriGautam Mukherjee, Asst.Commissioner, AR for the Respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for providing such taxable service and also that they have not availed benefit of notification No. 12/03-ST, dt. 20.06.2003. However, a revision notice was issued on 06.03.2008, under section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994, which culminated in the Order-in-Revision dated 08.06.2009 (impugned order), modifying the order of the original authority and confirming demand of service tax liability of ₹ 2,10,980/- with interest liability thereon and also imposing penalties under sections 76 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Hence this appeal. 4. On 15.11.2017, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant, Ld. Advocate Shri P. Prabhakar Murthy made oral and written submissions, which can be broadly summarised as under: (a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification No. 32/2004-ST restricted the service tax liability on taxable value in respect of services provided by Goods Transport Agency (GTA) to 25% of the gross amount charged. This notification was rescinded w.e.f. 01.03.2006 by notification No. 2/2006-ST, dated 01.03.2006. However, the exemption allowing for discharge of service tax liability only on 25% of the gross amount charged by the GTA was continued by notification No. 01/2006-ST, dated 01.03.2006, without any conditions on declaration etc. Even this was amended vide notification No. 13/2008, dated 01.03.2008, which while maintaining 25% cap of gross amount charged for the purpose of discharge of service tax liability, changed the focus of the exemption from taxable service provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n taken nor the benefit of notification No. 12/2003 has been taken by them. The said circular is reproduced below: F.No. 137/154/2008-CX.4 Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Excise and Customs Dated August, 21, 2008 Subject : Service Tax GTA Certain further clarification in respect to clarification issued vide circular No. 5/1/2007-ST, dated 12.03.2007 regarding exemption under notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 reg. 01. It may be recalled that a dispute had arisen whether or not the persons other than Goods Transport Agents (herein after called the GTA) i.e. consignor or consignee, whosoever pays tax under reverse charge methodunder the provision o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d i.e. between Jan 2005 when the service tax was imposed on GTA service and July / August 2005, when the Board Circular reached the field formations. This has been the reason for certain notices still remaining pending. 04. The matter has been examined. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in partial modification of the instructions contained in Circular No.B1/6/2005-TRU dated 27-7-2005, it is clarified that the benefit of availment of abatement may also be extended in past cases if the taxpayers produce a general declaration from the GTA to the service has been taken nor the benefit of notification No.12/2003-ST has been taken by them. 05. The past cases may be decided accordingly. 06. This issues with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xemption notification. The Tribunal also held that it is settled law that CBEC circulars cannot restrict or expand the amplitude of an exemption notification nor can they add/subtract conditionalities thereto/ there from. e) In a landmark judgment, Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Inter Continental (India) [2008(226) E.L.T 16(S.C), upheld the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Gujarat holding that the department by issuing a circular subsequent to the notification could not add new conditions to the notification thereby restricting the scope of exemption notification or whittling it down. f) In the case of Mutual Industries Limited vs. CCE ST, Vapi, in the final order no. A/85116-85117/16/STB, dated 30.10. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
