9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ignment note. We find that there is no such condition in the notification. Notification benefit should be allowed also for the period after issue of Circular based on the consolidated declaration obtained from GTA. The Circular of CBEC cannot prescribe a condition not present in the Notification. In the circumstances, we find that the impugned order is not in accordance with law. Therefore, as per the ratio of this case law, the Appellant would be eligible for abatement of 75% of the total freight value. Accordingly, as contended by the Appellant, the total Service Tax payable would amount to Rs. 26,43,025/- after considering this abatement. There is no dispute that the Appellant has paid Rs. 20,39,182/- along with interest of Rs. 15,79 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od 2006-2007 vide Page No. 45 of the Appeal Paper Book. They have also provided the details of Rs. 20,39,182/- paid as Service Tax along with interest of Rs. 15,79,196/-. They have also provided copies of the certificates issued to various transporters to the effect that no Cenvat Credit has been availed by them towards the inputs, capital goods or Service Tax. However, the Learned Consultant submits that without considering these documentary evidence placed before him, the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the entire demand. Being aggrieved, the Appellant is before the Tribunal. 2. The Learned Consultant takes us through Annexure I, wherein the calculation has been given requiring the Appellant to pay only Rs.26,43,025/- during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n account of Service Tax to be paid on RCM basis by the appellant. While quantifying the demand, the abatement available to them has not been considered. 9. The Tribunal in the case of Arani Agro Oil Industries, cited supra has gone into this issue and has held as under:- 4 . We find that vide the orders of the Tribunal, relied on by the appellants, it has been decided that recipient of GTA service was not required to furnish evidence of not availing cenvat scheme to qualify for the disputed benefit. Moreover, the benefit is denied for the reason that declaration of GTA as regards not availing the Cenvat credit was not available on each consignment note. We find that there is no such condition in the notification. Notification b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not under dispute. Firstly, the notification is concessional notification. Unlike in Central Excise law wherein the unconditional notification should be mandatorily availed by the assessee, similar provision is not available in service tax. Therefore, it is open for the assessee whether to avail the abatement provided under notification or to pay service tax on GTA on the 100% amount. Therefore, payment of service tax by the appellant on 100% of the transportation charge is legal and correct. Secondly, appellant was legally entitled for Cenvat Credit of service tax paid by them on GTA. Therefore, the objections raised by the audit are unsustainable. Appellant, after reversal of the credit adjusted the excess paid service tax against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
