Exemption for GTA service cannot be denied on a circular-imposed condition beyond the notification's requirements.

Exemption under Notifications No. 32/2004-S.T. and 01/2006-S.T. could not be denied to the recipient of GTA service merely because the declaration of non-availment of Cenvat credit was not endorsed on each consignment note. A consolidated certificate from the service provider showing non-availment of Cenvat credit and related notification benefit was sufficient, and the departmental circular could not impose a requirement beyond the notification itself. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the demand was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. and Notification No. 01/2006-S.T. could be denied to the recipient of Goods Transport Agency service on the ground that the declaration regarding non-availment of Cenvat credit was not endorsed on each consignment note.

Analysis: The appellant had produced a consolidated certificate from the service provider stating that Cenvat credit and the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. had not been availed. The Tribunal had already held that the recipient of GTA service was not required to furnish separate evidence in the manner demanded by the department to qualify for the notification benefit. The condition insisted upon in the Circular was not a condition found in the notification itself, and a circular cannot impose a requirement beyond the notification.

Conclusion: The denial of exemption was unsustainable. The appellant was entitled to the benefit of the notifications, and the demand was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A departmental circular cannot add a condition to an exemption notification, and exemption cannot be denied where the notification's substantive requirements are otherwise satisfied.

---