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>Tribunal allows waiver of pre-deposit for GTA without specific consignment notes</h1> <h3>RUNGTA IRRIGATION LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., VISAKHAPATNAM</h3> RUNGTA IRRIGATION LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., VISAKHAPATNAM - 2010 (18) S.T.R. 723 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:1. Waiver of pre-deposit under Notification No. 32/2004-S.T.2. Penalties imposed under Section 76 and Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.3. Interpretation of conditions for availing benefit of Notification No. 32/2004-S.T.4. Compliance with CBEC Circular dated 27-7-2005.Analysis:1. The appellants sought waiver of pre-deposit of Rs 57,299/- demanded towards abatement of 75% found to have been wrongly availed by them under Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. The Commissioner revised the original authority's order, which allowed the benefit of the notification based on a declaration filed by the GTAs. The Commissioner required consignment notes with specific endorsements for each consignment, citing a CBEC Circular. However, the Tribunal found that the CBEC Circular did not form a condition under Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. The Tribunal held that the consolidated declaration filed by the GTAs was sufficient compliance with the notification's requirements, ordering waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery pending appeal.2. The penalties imposed under Section 76 and Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were also contested in the appeal. The appellants sought relief from penalties imposed at Rs. 200/- per day and another penalty equal to the service tax demanded. The Tribunal's decision to waive pre-deposit also impacted the penalties, as the waiver and stay of recovery extended to all dues adjudged in the impugned order, including the penalties.3. The key issue revolved around the interpretation of conditions for availing the benefit of Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. The Commissioner's interpretation, requiring consignment notes with specific endorsements, was found to be incorrect by the Tribunal. The Tribunal clarified that the CBEC Circular dated 27-7-2005 did not establish a condition under the notification. The Tribunal held that the declaration filed by the GTAs was prima facie sufficient to qualify for the notification's benefit, emphasizing that the CBEC Circular did not alter the notification's requirements.4. The compliance with the CBEC Circular dated 27-7-2005 was a significant aspect of the case. The Commissioner relied on this circular to impose additional requirements for availing the notification's benefit. However, the Tribunal determined that the circular did not introduce new conditions under Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. The Tribunal's decision to waive pre-deposit was influenced by this finding, as it concluded that the requirements for availing the notification's benefit were adequately met through the consolidated declaration filed by the GTAs.
TaxTMI 