Substantive compliance under transport service abatement notification prevails over a missing declaration when non-availment is certified.

Abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST was held not to be denied merely because the declaration was omitted from the consignment note, where the GTA produced a certificate confirming that no credit on inputs or capital goods and no benefit under Notification No. 12/2003-ST had been availed. The Tribunal treated the certificate as sufficient proof of substantive compliance and regarded the missing declaration as a formal lapse only. The Revenue's challenge was rejected on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 30.12.2004 could be denied merely because the declaration was not made on the consignment note, when the GTA furnished a certificate that it had not availed credit on inputs or capital goods or the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the controversy was already covered by its earlier decisions. It accepted the certificate produced by the service provider as sufficient compliance with the substantive condition that no credit on inputs or capital goods and no benefit under Notification No. 12/2003-ST had been availed. The absence of the declaration on the consignment note was treated as not fatal where the substantive requirement stood satisfied.

Conclusion: The abatement could not be denied on the said ground, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Substantive compliance with the conditions of a notification prevails over a merely formal lapse where the required non-availment of credit or exempt benefit is ed by a proper certificate.

---