Pre-deposit not required in a GTA credit dispute where later transporters' declarations supported compliance and merits were remanded.

In a credit dispute concerning service tax paid on GTA services, the Tribunal held that no pre-deposit was warranted at the stay stage because the appellants' later transporters' declarations could be treated as sufficient compliance with the notification requirement, especially in light of supporting precedent. The rejection below for non-deposit was therefore set aside, the stay applications were allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether any pre-deposit was warranted for hearing the appeal, and whether the appellants' subsequent declaration from the transporters could be treated as sufficient compliance for the purpose of the credit dispute.

Analysis: The appeal was rejected below only for non-deposit of the amount ordered as a condition for stay. The Tribunal noted that the dispute related to availment of credit on service tax paid on GTA services and that the transporters' declarations obtained later supported the appellants' stand. In the circumstances, and having regard to precedent indicating that subsequent declarations may satisfy the substantial requirement of the notification, the Tribunal found that insistence on any pre-deposit was unnecessary at the stay stage.

Conclusion: No pre-deposit was required. The stay applications were allowed and the matter was sent back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.

---