GTA abatement cannot be denied for recipient's input-service credit where the prescribed declaration condition was not breached.

Abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST and Notification No. 1/2006-ST could not be denied merely because the service recipient had availed Cenvat credit on its own input services. The notifications required the GTA service provider to declare non-availment of credit on inputs or capital goods used in providing the service, and the show cause notice did not allege any failure to furnish that declaration. Since the Revenue relied on a condition not prescribed by the notifications, the exemption could not be refused on that basis, and the abatement was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to 75% abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST and Notification No. 1/2006-ST despite having availed Cenvat credit on input services, and whether the absence of a declaration by the GTA service provider denying availment of Cenvat credit disentitled the respondent to the exemption.

Analysis: The abatement notifications required the GTA service provider to declare non-availment of Cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods used in providing the service. The dispute raised in the show cause notice was confined to the respondent's own availing of Cenvat credit on input services and did not allege any failure by the GTA service provider to furnish the requisite declaration. The condition relied upon by the Revenue was therefore not the condition prescribed by the notifications, and there was no basis to deny the benefit merely because the recipient had taken credit on its own input services.

Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to the abatement and the Revenue's objection was rejected.

---