Tribunal grants appeal for manufacturer on abatement claim for GTA services under reverse charge provisions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, regarding the abatement claim on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services under reverse charge provisions. The Tribunal held that the appellant's right to claim abatement was valid, citing established case law precedent that conditions imposed on the GTA services could not practically be complied with by the recipient, thus entitling them to the benefit of abatement. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Claim of abatement on Goods Transport Agency service under reverse charge provisions.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the Order-in-appeal No.18/2009-ST dated 10.2.2009, where the appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, received Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services and availed a 75% abatement on the gross value of the GTA service as per Notification No.32/2004-ST dated 3.12.2004. The department denied the abatement claim as the appellant failed to submit declarations from all consignment notes stating non-availment of CENVAT credit. The issue revolved around the appellant's right to claim abatement. The appellant argued that the demand for service tax was unjustified, citing settled case law in their favor.

The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and examining the records, found that the issue in dispute was the appellant's claim of abatement under Notification No.32/2004 dated 3.12.2004. The Tribunal referred to various case laws, including Lykes Line Ltd. Vs. CST, Mumbai: 2017 (50) STR 51 (Tri.-Mum.), where it was held that conditions imposed on the GTA could not practically be complied with by the recipient of service. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the benefit of abatement could not be denied to the recipient. Similar views were upheld in other cases like Venkateshwara Distributors (P) Ltd. vs. CCE: 2013 (31) STR 469 (Tri.-Del.); CCE vs. Sunhil Ceramics Pvt. Ltd.: 2008 (9) STR 530 (Tri.-Ahmd.). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with any consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored the appellant, emphasizing that the abatement claim on GTA services under reverse charge provisions was valid, as supported by established case law precedent.

---