2011 (1) TMI 715 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant wins appeal challenging denial of benefits for Goods Transport Agency services under specific notifications.

ARANI AGRO OIL INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., VISAKHAPATNAM

The appellant successfully challenged the denial of benefits under Notification Nos. 32/2004-S.T. and 01/2006-S.T. for Goods Transport Agency services. ... Application for stay - GTA services - Waiver of pre-deposit - Notification Nos. 32/2004-S.T., dated 3-12-2004 and 01/2006-S.T., dated 1-3-2006 - 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 - 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 - Appeal is allowed Issues:1. Benefit denial under Notification Nos. 32/2004-S.T. and 01/2006-S.T.2. Requirement of declaration on each consignment note for GTA service.3. Applicability of Circular issued by CBEC.Analysis:1. The appellant availed services classified under 'Goods Transport Agency' during January 2005 to February 2006. The impugned order denied benefits under Notification Nos. 32/2004-S.T. and 01/2006-S.T., exempting service tax in excess of 75% of the tax due. The demand pertained to GTA service availed between September 2005 to February 2006. The appellant challenged the order, claiming compliance with necessary conditions under Notification 32/2004-S.T. They argued that a consolidated certificate was filed, certifying that the service provider did not avail benefits under the CENVAT Scheme or Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. The impugned order required the declaration to be endorsed on each consignment note, citing a Circular by CBEC. The appellant contended that previous Tribunal decisions favored the appellant, stating that evidence of GTA not availing CENVAT scheme was not mandatory for Notification 32/2004-S.T. compliance.2. The Tribunal examined previous decisions and found that the recipient of GTA service did not need to provide evidence of not availing the CENVAT scheme to qualify for the disputed benefit. The denial of benefits due to the absence of the declaration on each consignment note was deemed incorrect, as no such condition was present in the notification. The Tribunal held that benefits should be allowed based on a consolidated declaration obtained from GTA, even after the issuance of the Circular by CBEC. It was concluded that the Circular could not impose conditions not specified in the Notification. Consequently, the impugned order was deemed legally incorrect, and the appeal was allowed, with the stay petition also being disposed of.3. The Tribunal's decision highlighted that the Circular issued by CBEC could not introduce new conditions beyond those outlined in the Notification. By setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal, the Tribunal established that compliance with the Notification requirements, rather than additional conditions imposed through Circulars, was essential for availing benefits. The judgment emphasized the primacy of statutory notifications over administrative directives, ensuring clarity and consistency in the application of tax laws related to GTA services.