Notification benefit for GTA services requires verification of non-availment of Cenvat credit; unsupported rejection was set aside.

Entitlement to Notification No. 32/2004-ST turned on whether the GTA had not availed Cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods. The record contained no specific allegation or finding that such credit had been taken, while the appellant relied on endorsements in some bills and GTA declarations in others. Rejection of that evidence without departmental verification was unwarranted, and the clarification dated 21.08.2008 had to be considered on reconsideration. The denial of notification benefit and the resulting demand and penalty were therefore set aside, and the matter was remanded for verification and fresh decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 32/2004-ST despite the absence of endorsement in consignment notes, and whether the demand and penalty could be sustained without departmental verification of the GTA's non-availment of credit.

Analysis: The benefit of the notification depended on the condition that the concerned GTA had not taken Cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods. The record did not show any specific allegation or finding that the GTA had in fact availed such credit. The appellant produced endorsements on bills in some cases and declarations from the concerned GTA in others. No verification was undertaken by the Department to test the genuineness of those declarations, and the rejection of that evidence without verification was found to be unwarranted. The clarification dated 21.08.2008 was also required to be considered while examining the matter afresh.

Conclusion: The denial of the notification benefit and the consequential confirmation of demand and penalty were set aside, and the matter was remanded for verification and reconsideration.

---