Goods transport agency abatement cannot be denied for missing declaration where credit was not actually availed and the later circular was inapplicable.

The 75% abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. for goods transport agency services could not be denied merely because a declaration of non-availment of credit was not produced on the consignment note. The notification required that credit on inputs or capital goods used for the taxable service not be taken under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and the service tax liability under section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 was shifted to the recipient as a deemed provider. As the record did not show any credit availed by the transport agency, and the Board circular requiring the declaration was issued later, that procedural requirement was inapplicable for the relevant period. The abatement was therefore available and the Revenue's objection failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were entitled to the 75% abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. in respect of goods transport agency services when the Revenue sought to deny the benefit on the ground of non-production of a declaration regarding non-availment of credit by the service provider.

Analysis: The abatement notification was linked to the condition that credit of duty on inputs or capital goods used for providing the taxable service should not have been taken under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The liability to pay service tax under section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 had been shifted to the recipient as a deemed provider of service. The record did not show that the goods transport agency had availed any such credit, and the Board circular prescribing a declaration on the consignment note was issued only later. Since that procedural requirement was not in force during the relevant period, it could not be invoked to deny the benefit.

Conclusion: The respondents were entitled to the abatement and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---