Procedural endorsement cannot override abatement notification where the statutory conditions are otherwise satisfied.

Abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST could not be denied for absence of endorsement on the consignment note, because the notification itself required only non-availment of CENVAT credit and of Notification No. 12/2003-ST benefit. A Board circular could not add a mandatory statutory condition or defeat the substantive abatement merely by prescribing a procedural clarification. The earlier remand order had attained finality, so the Revenue could not challenge the later order by ignoring that binding direction. The substantive abatement was therefore upheld and the procedural objection rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST could be denied for want of endorsement on the consignment note when the notification itself did not prescribe such a condition; (ii) whether the Revenue could assail the impugned order in the face of an earlier remand order that had attained finality.

Issue (i): Whether the abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST could be denied for want of endorsement on the consignment note when the notification itself did not prescribe such a condition.

Analysis: The notification granted 75% abatement subject only to the condition that no CENVAT credit and no benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST had been availed. The requirement of endorsement on the consignment note stemmed only from the Board's circular, which was described as a procedural clarification for implementation. Since the notification did not make such endorsement a statutory condition, the circular could not override the notification or be used to deny a substantive benefit. On the facts, it was not disputed that the service had been received and tax liability was otherwise attracted under the reverse charge arrangement.

Conclusion: The endorsement requirement was not mandatory, and denial of abatement on that ground was unjustified.

Issue (ii): Whether the Revenue could assail the impugned order in the face of an earlier remand order that had attained finality.

Analysis: The matter had earlier been remanded to permit production of evidence regarding non-availment of CENVAT credit and the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST. In the absence of any appeal against that remand order, it had become final. The Revenue could not ignore that final remand direction while challenging the later order passed pursuant to it.

Conclusion: The Revenue was precluded from questioning the impugned order by disregarding the final remand order.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the procedural endorsement requirement could not be elevated into a mandatory statutory condition and the earlier remand order bound the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: A departmental circular cannot add a mandatory condition to a notification or be used to defeat a substantive exemption or abatement when the notification itself does not prescribe that condition.

---