Exemption under Notification 32/2004-ST required verification of the appellant's declaration before denial and remand.

Denial of exemption under Notification No. 32/2004-ST could not be upheld without verifying the declaration subsequently produced by the appellant, because the dispute turned on whether the required declaration of non-availment of credit and of benefit under Notification No. 12/2003 had in fact been furnished. The Tribunal held that this factual aspect required reconsideration and fresh verification. The impugned order was set aside, pre-deposit, interest and penalty were waived at the interim stage, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after hearing the appellant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the denial of benefit under Notification No. 32/2004-ST required reconsideration in view of the declaration subsequently produced by the appellant, and whether the matter should be remanded for verification.

Analysis: The notice had proceeded on the basis that the exemption benefit was available only to the service provider, while the adjudication order also rested on the absence of the necessary declaration regarding non-availment of credit and non-availment of the benefit under Notification No. 12/2003. The appellant produced the declaration before the Tribunal, and the question whether the declaration was sufficient required factual verification. In these circumstances, the impugned order could not be sustained without such verification, and the appellant was entitled to relief at the interim stage.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, pre-deposit, interest and penalty were waived, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision after granting an opportunity of hearing.

---