Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether abatement of service tax under Notification No. 01/2006-ST could be denied merely because the consignment notes were not endorsed, when the transporters were not registered with the service tax department and there was no case that they had availed Cenvat credit.
Analysis: The only objection raised by Revenue was the absence of endorsement on the consignment notes. The factual stand that the transporters were not registered with the service tax department was not disputed, and in such circumstances availing Cenvat credit by them did not arise. The endorsement requirement was treated as a procedural requirement prescribed by the Board and not as an essential condition of the exemption notification. A procedural stipulation cannot be used to defeat a substantive benefit when the underlying condition of non-availment of credit is otherwise satisfied.
Conclusion: The abatement could not be denied on the sole ground of non-endorsement of consignment notes. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The demand and penalty were set aside and the assessee was held entitled to the claimed abatement with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: A procedural requirement introduced by administrative instruction cannot override an exemption notification or be used to deny a substantive tax benefit where the substantive condition of the notification is otherwise fulfilled.