TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal rules for transporters in Cenvat credit case</h1> <h3>KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS., LUCKNOW</h3> KISAN SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS., LUCKNOW - 2013 (30) S.T.R. 481 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Denial of benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. to the appellant.2. Requirement of certificates from transporters for availing abatement.3. Consideration of certificates by the appellate authority.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI addressed the issue of denying the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. to the appellant concerning the abatement for payment of Service Tax on GTA services received. The Revenue contended that such abatement is subject to transporters providing certificates confirming no availed modvat credit or benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. Due to the appellant's inability to produce these certificates, a demand was confirmed against them. The original adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision.The appellant argued that they had submitted GRs issued by transporters to show that these transporters were not registered with the Service Tax department, hence not availing any Cenvat credit or exemption benefits. The appellant later produced certificates from the transporters before the Commissioner (Appeals), which were not considered, leading to the affirmation of lower authorities' orders. The appellant also cited relevant Tribunal decisions to support their case.Upon review, the Tribunal found that the transporters' non-registration with the Service Tax department should have sufficed as evidence of non-availing of Cenvat credit or exemption benefits. The subsequent submission of certificates by the appellant, ignored by the Commissioner (Appeals), established the non-availing of benefits. Consequently, the appellant was deemed entitled to the Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. benefit, leading to the setting aside of the confirmed tax demand and penalty.The judgment concluded by allowing the stay petition and the appeal, granting relief to the appellant.
TaxTMI 