2008 (12) TMI 121 - AT - Service Tax

CESTAT AHMEDABAD Upholds GTA Abatement: Declarations on Letterheads Deemed Sufficient

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order in a 2008 case regarding abatement for Goods Transport Agencies under ... Notification No. 32/2004-ST providing abatement of 75% to Goods Transport agency subject to some conditions – Commissioner (A) allowing benefit of notification ibid holding that declaration made by the GTAs on their letter heads were sufficient to meet the requirement of the notification - circular No. B1/6/2005-TRU clarifies that a declaration by the GTA in consignment note may suffice for the purpose of availment of abatement - Commissioner (Appeals)’ order it is well reasoned and follows the decision of SC in Dhiren Chemicals Inds. - held that substantial benefit cannot be denied for minor procedural lapses The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD issued a citation in 2008 (12) TMI 121 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding a notification (No. 32/2004-S.T. dt. 3-12-2004) granting abatement of 75% to Goods Transport Agencies (GTAs). The main argument was whether a declaration made by GTAs on their letterheads was sufficient to meet the notification's requirements. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the GTAs had adequately met the conditions by providing separate declarations on their letterheads, which were shown to the Audit party. The Board's circular clarified that a declaration on the consignment note may suffice for availing abatement, but it did not prescribe a mandatory procedure. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the denial of benefits under the notification was incorrect in law.The respondent's advocate requested an adjournment, but the Tribunal found the Commissioner (Appeals)' order well-reasoned and in line with a Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal held that the Board's circular in favor of the appellants must be applied and that the declaration requirement was procedural, with substantial compliance. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The judgement was pronounced in court by Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T).