TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>GTA operator invoices without credit endorsement still qualify for abatement under N/N. 32/2004-ST on reverse charge basis</h1> <h3>M/s Liberty Shoes Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Delhi and Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Panchkula</h3> M/s Liberty Shoes Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Delhi and Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Panchkula - TMI Issues:The appeal challenges Orders-in-Appeal dated 24.06.2014 regarding the denial of abatement on service tax for the period 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2007 due to lack of endorsement on invoices issued by Goods Transport Agency (GTA) operators.Analysis:The case involves M/s Liberty Shoes Ltd. availing GTA services for product transportation without paying service tax for 2005-2007, later depositing the tax with interest after being alerted by Revenue. The issue revolves around denying abatement due to missing endorsement on GTA operators' invoices regarding CENVAT credit. The appellants argue that the exemption condition under Notification No.32/2004 applies to GTA operators paying service tax, not recipients under Reverse Charge Mechanism. They rely on CBEC Circular No.137/154/2008-CX4 and precedents like Sandur Micro Circuits Ltd. The appellants contend that CENVAT credit cannot be denied for procedural lapses, citing relevant case laws.The Tribunal notes that the Notification condition primarily concerns GTA service providers, not recipients under Reverse Charge Mechanism like the appellant. Referring to Sandur Micro Circuits Ltd., the Tribunal emphasizes that Circulars cannot override statutory Notifications, especially to impose new restrictions. It also highlights that procedural lapses, as in this case, should not bar substantial abatement benefits, supported by the Sandoz (P) Ltd. judgment. The Tribunal concludes that the issue is well-settled through various judgments, leading to allowing the appeals based on merit without delving into other aspects like limitation.In summary, the Tribunal rules in favor of the appellants, allowing the appeals and granting consequential relief as per law. The decision rests on the understanding that the abatement denial due to missing endorsement on GTA operators' invoices was unjustified, given the Reverse Charge Mechanism application and the precedents supporting the appellants' position.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
