Abatement under service tax notification cannot be denied on procedural objection when GTA declarations are produced and no prohibited credit is shown.

Abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST could not be denied on a mere procedural objection where the assessees produced the GTA declarations before the appellate authority. The appellate record also showed no allegation that the transporters had availed Cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods, or taken benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST. On those facts, the notification benefit was available and the Revenue's challenge failed, leaving the abatement in favour of the assessees undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessees were entitled to abatement of 75% under Notification No. 32/2004-ST despite the Revenue's objection that the prescribed procedure under the Board's circular was not followed and GTA declarations were not produced.

Analysis: The assessees had produced copies of the declarations obtained from the Goods Transport Agency before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority also found no allegation that the GTAs had availed Cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods or had taken benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST. On these facts, the benefit of abatement under the notification could not be denied.

Conclusion: The assessees were held entitled to the abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals were rejected and the order allowing abatement in favour of the assessees was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the prescribed declarations are produced and there is no allegation that the service provider has availed prohibited credit or overlapping exemption, abatement under the relevant service tax notification cannot be denied on a procedural objection alone.

---