Abatement benefit preserved where a separate declaration satisfied the notification's compliance requirement, despite no endorsement on each consignment note.

Abatement under Notification No. 32/04-ST could not be denied merely because the service provider's declaration that Cenvat credit had not been availed was not endorsed on each consignment note. The Tribunal held that, where the notification did not expressly require endorsement on every consignment note, a separate declaration furnished to the service receiver was sufficient compliance. On that basis, the absence of a declaration on each note was not fatal to the claim, and the assessee remained entitled to the abatement benefit.

---

---

Issues: Whether abatement under Notification No. 32/04-ST dated 03.12.2004 could be denied only because the declaration by the service provider that cenvat credit had not been availed was not made on each consignment note.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the notification did not require the declaration to be endorsed on every consignment note. A separate declaration from the service provider, when furnished to the service receiver, was sufficient for claiming the benefit. The requirement was treated as satisfied by such separate declaration, and the absence of declaration on each consignment note was not considered fatal to the claim for abatement.

Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed, and the assessee was held entitled to the abatement benefit on the basis of the separate declaration.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the notification does not expressly require a declaration on each consignment note, a separate declaration by the service provider is sufficient compliance for availing abatement.

---