https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244117 Abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST and Notification No. 1/2006-ST could not be denied merely because the service recipient had availed Cenvat credit on its own input services. The notifications required the GTA service provider to declare non-availment of credit on inputs or capital goods used in providing the service, and the show cause notice did not allege any failure to furnish that declaration. Since the Revenue relied on a condition not prescribed by the notifications, the exemption could not be refused on that basis, and the abatement was upheld. en-us Wed, 22 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244117 Abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST and Notification No. 1/2006-ST could not be denied merely because the service recipient had availed Cenvat credit on its own input services. The notifications required the GTA service provider to declare non-availment of credit on inputs or capital goods used in providing the service, and the show cause notice did not allege any failure to furnish that declaration. Since the Revenue relied on a condition not prescribed by the notifications, the exemption could not be refused on that basis, and the abatement was upheld. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 22 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244117