https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75558 Benefit of Notification No. 34/04 could not be rejected without fresh examination of the evidence said to show that the GTA service provider had not availed credit on inputs or capital goods, or the benefit of Notification No. 12/03. Affidavits and certificates were produced to support compliance, but the adjudicating authority had not verified this material afresh. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration after verification of the evidence and after granting an opportunity of hearing. en-us Mon, 18 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75558 Benefit of Notification No. 34/04 could not be rejected without fresh examination of the evidence said to show that the GTA service provider had not availed credit on inputs or capital goods, or the benefit of Notification No. 12/03. Affidavits and certificates were produced to support compliance, but the adjudicating authority had not verified this material afresh. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration after verification of the evidence and after granting an opportunity of hearing. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 18 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75558