https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208208 Abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST was held not to be denied merely because the declaration was omitted from the consignment note, where the GTA produced a certificate confirming that no credit on inputs or capital goods and no benefit under Notification No. 12/2003-ST had been availed. The Tribunal treated the certificate as sufficient proof of substantive compliance and regarded the missing declaration as a formal lapse only. The Revenue's challenge was rejected on that basis. en-us Tue, 01 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jan 2012 07:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208208 Abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST was held not to be denied merely because the declaration was omitted from the consignment note, where the GTA produced a certificate confirming that no credit on inputs or capital goods and no benefit under Notification No. 12/2003-ST had been availed. The Tribunal treated the certificate as sufficient proof of substantive compliance and regarded the missing declaration as a formal lapse only. The Revenue's challenge was rejected on that basis. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 01 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208208