Appeal allowed for 75% abatement under Notification 32/2004-ST as format of transport agency declarations deemed immaterial

CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal regarding denial of 75% abatement under Notification 32/2004-ST for goods transport service. The appellant had produced general declarations from transport agencies stating they had not availed Cenvat credit and benefits under Notification 12/2003-ST. The adjudicating authority rejected these declarations solely because they were not made on consignment notes. CESTAT held that the format of declaration is immaterial as long as it conveys the required information. The department failed to prove the declarations were false or that transport agencies had actually availed the benefits. The denial based on assumptions was unsustainable, following Gujarat HC precedent in Cadila Pharmaceuticals case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant violated the condition of Notification No. 32/2004-ST by availing abatement of 75% from the gross amount for goods transport service without availing Cenvat credit or the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST, based on a general declaration from the transport agency.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Violation of Notification No. 32/2004-ST Conditions

Appellant's Argument:
The appellant argued that general declarations from transport agencies stating they had not availed Cenvat credit or the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST were sufficient for compliance. The appellant cited various judgments supporting their position:
- Commr. of Service Tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd (2012)
- Lykes Line Ltd Vs. Comm. Service Tax, Mumbai - I (2017)
- Commr. C., Ex., Patna Vs. Hindustan Co-Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd (2018)
- Karuna Agencies Vs. Commr CGST & Central Ex, New Delhi (2023)
- Eastern Coalfields Ltd Vs Commr. C.Ex., & S.T. Bolpur (2013)
- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Vs. Commr. C. Ex., Patna (2013)
- Circular No. B1/6/2015-TRU Dated 27/07/2005

Respondent's Argument:
The respondent reiterated the findings of the impugned order, which rejected the general declarations on the ground that they should be made on the consignment note.

Tribunal's Findings:
The tribunal found that Notification No. 32/2004-ST requires the transport agencies not to avail Cenvat credit or the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST. The tribunal disagreed with the adjudicating authority's view that the declaration must be on the consignment note. It held that a general declaration is sufficient and that the department failed to provide evidence that the declarations were false or that the transport agencies availed Cenvat credit and Notification No. 12/2003-ST benefits. The tribunal concluded that denial of the 75% abatement based on assumptions and presumptions was unjustified.

Supporting Judgments:
1. Commr. of Service Tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd (2012):
- The Gujarat High Court held that the requirements prescribed by the Board's Circular were not mandatory for denying substantive rights. The tribunal's view that general declarations were sufficient was upheld.

2. Lykes Line Ltd (2017):
- The tribunal reiterated that the conditions imposed by the Board Circular for obtaining declarations on consignment notes were not mandatory. The substantive benefit of the exemption could not be denied unless the department proved a violation of the notification conditions.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the appellant correctly availed the abatement of 75% under Notification No. 32/2004-ST based on general declarations from the transport agencies. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Final Judgment:
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, affirming that the appellant correctly availed the 75% abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST based on general declarations from the transport agencies. The tribunal emphasized that the denial of the abatement was based on incorrect assumptions and that the general declarations were sufficient for compliance.

---