Tribunal sets aside service tax order, manufacturer compliant with Notification, entitled to benefit under September 2005 Notification.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Commissioner's order demanding service tax and penalty. The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, was found to have complied with the Notification's requirements by making a general declaration instead of a declaration on each consignment note. The Tribunal emphasized adherence to legal provisions and circulars in determining tax liabilities, confirming the appellant's entitlement to the benefit under the Notification for September 2005.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 32/2004-S.T., dated 3-12-2004 regarding service tax exemption.
2. Validity of general declaration versus consignment note declaration for availing benefit under the Notification.
3. Compliance with Circulars issued by CBEC in relation to the Notification.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a challenge against an Order-in-Revision demanding service tax and penalty on the appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, for availing "Goods Transport Agency Service" under reverse charge method. The Commissioner revised the original authority's order, basing the demand on the interpretation of Notification No. 32/2004-S.T., which provided exemption from service tax under certain conditions.

2. The Commissioner's order was contested on the grounds that the Circulars issued by CBEC did not mandate a declaration on each consignment note for availing the Notification's benefit. The appellant argued that a general declaration sufficed, as clarified in a Circular dated 21-8-08, and therefore, the denial of benefit for September 2005 was unjustified. The Commissioner's decision was challenged as unsustainable due to the absence of specific conditions in the Notification.

3. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the appellant had followed the procedure accepted by the department up to August 2005, where a general declaration was deemed sufficient. The Tribunal noted that the CBEC Circular did not introduce additional conditions to the Notification. As the appellant had complied with the requirements and declarations, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal, confirming the appellant's entitlement to the benefit under the Notification for September 2005 as well. The decision emphasized the importance of adhering to the legal provisions and circulars in determining tax liabilities.

---