9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty paid on inputs or capital goods and did not avail the benefit under the notification no. 12/2003-ST dated 20th June, 2003. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the appellant had produced the original copies of the said declaration, and an opportunity was granted to the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue to examine the same and on perusal thereof, he did not find any infirmity in the photocopy in comparing the same with the original certificate. There are similar declarations by other GTA s on record. There is, therefore, no reason to deny the benefit of the exemption notification to the appellant - it is also found that Circular No.B/16/2005 TRU dated 27.7.2005, has clarified that in cases where lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6), which exempted the taxable service provided by goods transport agency to a customer, in relation to transport of goods by road in a goods carriage, from so much of the service tax, leviable thereon under Section 66 of the Act, as is in excess of the service tax calculated on a value which is equivalent to 25% of the gross amount charged from the customer by such goods transport agency for providing the taxable service. The notification further provided that the said exemption shall not apply in cases, (i) where the credit of duty paid on inputs or capital goods used for providing such taxable service has been taken under the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 or (ii) the goods transport agency has availed the benefit under noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order on the ground that the appellant had produced only the photo copy of the declaration, the authenticity thereof could not be verified. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and also the Authorised Representative for the revenue and perused the records of the case. 6. The submission of the appellant is that the benefit of the exemption notification no. 32/2004- ST dated 3.12.2004, wherein the value for levy of service tax of 25% of the gross amount charged by the GTA to a customer was denied to him on the ground that he had produced only the photo copy of the declaration of three service providers on their letter head for which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty paid on inputs or capital goods and did not avail the benefit under the notification no. 12/2003-ST dated 20th June, 2003. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the appellant had produced the original copies of the said declaration, and an opportunity was granted to the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue to examine the same and on perusal thereof, he did not find any infirmity in the photocopy in comparing the same with the original certificate. The contents of one of the declaration reads as under : I Chater Sain, Delivery Manager of M/s Prakash Parcel Sservices, Delhi hereby confirm that we are not availing any credit on input and capital goods and also not availing the benefit of notification no. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
