https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241065 Abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. could not be denied to a recipient of goods transport agency service merely because the recipient had taken Cenvat credit on other services. The notification conditions on non-availment of credit and related exclusions were treated as applying to the transport service provider, not the recipient. Transporter certificates stating that no Cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods had been taken, and that the notification benefit had not been availed, were accepted as sufficient. A separate declaration on each consignment note was not required because the notification did not prescribe repeated declarations. The benefit was therefore allowed with consequential relief. en-us Fri, 23 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 16:12:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241065 Abatement under Notification No. 1/2006-S.T. could not be denied to a recipient of goods transport agency service merely because the recipient had taken Cenvat credit on other services. The notification conditions on non-availment of credit and related exclusions were treated as applying to the transport service provider, not the recipient. Transporter certificates stating that no Cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods had been taken, and that the notification benefit had not been availed, were accepted as sufficient. A separate declaration on each consignment note was not required because the notification did not prescribe repeated declarations. The benefit was therefore allowed with consequential relief. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 23 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241065