2020 (1) TMI 1287 - AT - Service Tax

Appeal allowed on abatement conditions, remanded for evidence examination.

M/s Concast Ferro Inc. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Visakhapatnam-I

M/s Concast Ferro Inc. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Visakhapatnam-I - TMI Issues:- Applicability of Notification No. 32/2004-ST and 1/2006-ST for abatement of Service Tax.- Compliance with conditions for availing abatement.- Verification of necessary declarations for non-availment of CENVAT credit.- Remand of the matter for further examination.Analysis:The appeal was against an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam-I, concerning the appellants' failure to pay appropriate Service Tax by wrongly availing the benefit of exemption Notifications. The key issue was whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 32/2004-ST and 1/2006-ST for abatement of Service Tax. The Revenue argued that the benefit was rightly disallowed due to the absence of evidence regarding non-availment of CENVAT credit or benefit under previous notifications.Upon reviewing the records and grounds of appeal, the Tribunal focused on the conditions specified in the Notifications for availing the abatement. It was noted that the appellants had submitted sample transport bills and declarations to support their compliance with the conditions. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found the evidence insufficient and ruled against the appellants. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for further verification of the declarations and evidence provided by the appellants.The Tribunal emphasized the importance of verifying whether the necessary declarations regarding non-availment of CENVAT credit and benefit under previous notifications were made on consignment notes. The decision to remand the matter was based on the need for a detailed examination of the evidence to determine the appellants' eligibility for abatement under the relevant Notifications. The impugned order was set aside, and the adjudicating authority was directed to decide the issue after providing a reasonable opportunity for the appellant to present their case.In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, highlighting the significance of fulfilling the conditions specified in the Notifications for availing abatement of Service Tax. The Tribunal's decision underscored the need for proper documentation and evidence to support claims of compliance with the regulatory requirements.