Procedural defect in GTA declaration format cannot deny abatement where substantive notification conditions were otherwise satisfied.

Abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. could not be denied merely because the goods transport agencies furnished the non-availment declaration on their letterheads instead of on the consignment notes. The notification required only substantive compliance with the conditions that the GTA had not taken Cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods and had not availed the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T.; it did not prescribe an exclusive proof format. The Board's circular treated a declaration on the consignment note as sufficient, not mandatory. Since the declarations were available and produced during audit, the lapse was only procedural and the assessee was entitled to the abatement.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. dated 3-12-2004 when the required declaration regarding non-availment of credit was furnished by the goods transport agencies on their letterheads instead of on the consignment notes.

Analysis: The notification granted abatement subject to conditions that the goods transport agency had not availed Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods and had not taken benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. dated 20-6-2003. No mandatory procedure for proof of compliance was prescribed in the notification. The Board's circular clarified that a declaration on the consignment note may suffice, but it did not make that form exclusive. The declarations were in fact available on the GTAs' letterheads and were produced during audit. The requirement was therefore procedural, and denial of the benefit for such a minor lapse was not justified.

Conclusion: The assessee had sufficiently complied with the notification conditions and was entitled to the abatement.

---