9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant being a recipient of the GTA service are holding Service Tax registration as per the provisions of Section 69 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. As per the CBEC's exemption notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 and Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 the exemption has been provided to 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 as an excess of the Service Tax calculated on the value which is equal to 25% of the gross amount charge from the customer by such 'Goods Transport Agency' subject to the following condition:- "(i) the credit of duty paid on inputs or capital goods or the CENVAT cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, a show cause notice dated 01.04.2010 came to be issued which was adjudicated by the impugned order-in-original dated 29th January, 2014, all the charges as invoked in the show cause notice has been confirmed by the learned Adjudicating Authority. 4. The learned advocate appeared for the appellant has submitted that it is a matter of record that the appellant have discharged Service Tax liability on the 'Goods Transport Agency Service' received by them on 'reverse charge' basis has provided under the provisions of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. It has been the contention of the learned advocate that the abetment of 75% of the value of the goods transport charges is available to recipient of the service provided the (i) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2023 (12) TMI 438 - CESTAT New Delhi * Eastern Coalfields Ltd Vs Commr. C.Ex., & S.T. Bolpur - 2013 (29) S.T.R. 314 (Tri - Kolkata) * Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Vs. Commr. C. Ex., Patna - 2013 (29) S.T.R. 524 (Tri- Kol) It has been contention of the learned advocate that there is no violation of the conditions of the Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 as well as Notification no. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006 and therefore the demand of service tax on the appellant is without any legal basis and same is also not based on the facts. 5. We have also heard the departmental Representative who has reiterated the findings as given in the impugned order-in-original. 6. Having heard the rival contentions and on perusal of the record o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he requirement of pre deposit, we take up the appeal for disposal. 5. This Tribunal vide its order dated 20.06.2012 (supra) has held as under:- "...... We find that the present appeal revolves around a limited issue of eligibility of abatement of 75% from the gross taxable value of service rendered by a goods transport agency (GTA) as allowed under Notification No. 32/2004-ST, dated 03.12.2004 or Notification No. 1/2006-5. T., dated 1-3-2006. The point of dispute between the appellant and the Revenue was that the declaration required to be filed by the respective goods transport agency as prescribed by the Board in its earlier Circular No. B1/6/2005-TRU, dated 27-7-2005 has not been complied with. In the said Circular, it was clarifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on on 21-8-2008. It is clarified as follows: The matter has been examined. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case 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 effect that neither credit on input or capital goods used for the provision of service has been taken not the benefit of notification No. 12/2003-5.T. has been taken by them." Further we find that the issue of abatement from the taxable value under Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. or 1/2006-S.T. is no more res integra. This Tribunal in the case of Paliwal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment insisting for declaration on each consignment note for allowing the abatement under the said Notifications is unsustainable in law. In these circumstances the declarations filed by the Goods Transport Agencies (GTA) in their letter-heads or in the respective payment bills certifying that they have not availed Cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods nor availed the benefit of exemption Notification 12/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003 should have been accepted by the department in extending the benefit of Notification Nos. 32/2003-S.T. and 1/2006-S.T. In view of the above findings, we do not see any merit in the impugned orders passed by the Id. Commissioner. Consequently the order is set aside and the Appeals are allowed. 6. We find tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
