https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215522 Abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST and Notification No. 1/2006-ST for GTA services could not be denied solely because the consignment note lacked a prescribed declaration, where earlier decisions accepted transporter certificates in the absence of any mandated format. The Tribunal found that the certificates produced by the assessee required factual verification, so the abatement claim could not be finally rejected on the existing record. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the certificates and a fresh decision in accordance with law. en-us Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215522 Abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST and Notification No. 1/2006-ST for GTA services could not be denied solely because the consignment note lacked a prescribed declaration, where earlier decisions accepted transporter certificates in the absence of any mandated format. The Tribunal found that the certificates produced by the assessee required factual verification, so the abatement claim could not be finally rejected on the existing record. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the certificates and a fresh decision in accordance with law. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215522