https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76730 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. en-us Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Aug 2014 10:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76730 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. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76730