GTA service abatement under Notification 1/2006-S.T. cannot be denied solely due to recipient Cenvat credit use.

Abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. could not be denied to a recipient of goods transport agency service merely because the recipient had taken Cenvat credit on other services. The notification conditions on non-availment of credit and related exclusions were treated as applying to the transport service provider, not the recipient. Transporter certificates stating that no Cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods had been taken, and that the notification benefit had not been availed, were accepted as sufficient. A separate declaration on each consignment note was not required because the notification did not prescribe repeated declarations. The benefit was therefore allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. could be denied to a service recipient of goods transport agency service on the ground that the recipient had availed Cenvat credit on other services, and whether a transporter's declaration was sufficient to satisfy the notification conditions.

Analysis: The notification conditions relating to non-availment of Cenvat credit and related exclusions were treated as conditions applicable to the service provider, namely the transporter, and not to the service recipient. The record also contained transporter certificates stating that no Cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods had been taken and that the benefit of the relevant notification had not been availed. The absence of a declaration on each consignment note was held immaterial because the notification did not require such repeated declarations.

Conclusion: Denial of the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. was unjustified, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

---