9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The demand of declaration about not availing the Cenvat credit stands redundant in view of the said amendment. The notifications are extending substantial benefit to the assessee. The same cannot be denied for want of meagre procedural lapse. In the present case there is not even the said procedural lapse. Denying the benefit of the impugned notification for alleging the payment by the Appellant as short is, therefore, opined to be a wrong finding. Adjudicating authority below are required to be updated with respect to the latest laws and the respective amendments while adjudicating the respective issues. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- Department could not have proved the mandate of any such declaration. Accordingly, no question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount along with the interest at appropriate rate and the proportionate penalty. The proposed recovery was confirmed initially vide Order-in-Original No. 17/2017 dated 25.07.2017. The appeal thereof has also been rejected by Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order-under-challenge. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Ms. Priyamvada Joshi, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Yashvir Singh, learned DR for the department. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the only ground for alleging the Service Tax payment of the appellant as a short payment is that the appellant has not filed the declaration about not availing Cenvat credit while availing the benefit of Notification No. 13/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from the customer by such Goods Transport Agency but the said exemption is subject to two conditions, one whereof is about the declaration that the G.T.A has not availed the benefit under Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003. Justifying the said order and impressing upon that there is no infirmity therein that the appeal in hand is prayed to be dismissed. 4. After hearing both the parties, perusing the entire record as well as the Order-under-Challenge, I observe and hold as follows: 4.1 That the Appellant is the service recipient of the Goods Transport Agency Services who has to discharge the Service Tax liability as contrary to the general notion of the said liability to be discharged by the provider. Admittedly, the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to do, hereby exempts the taxable service provided by a goods transport agency to any person in relation to transport of goods by road in a goods carriage, referred to in sub-clause (zzp) of clause (105) of section 65 of the Finance Act, from so much of the service tax leviable thereon under section 66 of the Finance Act, as is in excess of the amount of service tax calculated on a value equivalent to twenty five per cent. Of the gross amount charged by the goods transport agency for providing the said taxable service. Subsequent to this notification there has been department's own clarification vide Circular No.334/1/2008 dated 29.02.2008 which reads as follows: In the case of services provided for the transport of goods by ro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice provider. Both these notifications and classiffication which are subsequent to the notification relied upon by Commissioner Appeals while denying the benefit to the Appellant are sufficient to hold that no declaration as is impressed upon by the department and based whereupon the benefit of exemption is denied to the Appellant is any required. 6. Further, it is observed that both these notifications are in very much confirmity with the statute which has amended the definition of output service in Rule 2 (p) of Cenvat credit Rules, 2004. The definition of output service w.e.f 01.07.2012 is as under: (p) Output Service means any service provided by a provider of service located in the taxable territory but shall not inclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ather clarifies that in the present case there is not even the said procedural lapse. Denying the benefit of the impugned notification for alleging the payment by the Appellant as short is, therefore, opined to be a wrong finding. Adjudicating authority below are required to be updated with respect to the latest laws and the respective amendments while adjudicating the respective issues. 8. Coming to the aspect of the limitations, it is held that the above discussion clarifies about the entitlement of the Appellant for exemption to the extent of 75% of the gross value of GTA Services with no condition to be applicable for availing the said exemption. Department could not have proved the mandate of any such declaration. Accordingly, no qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
