https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364409 Abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. cannot be denied merely because GTA certificates were not produced, where the notification itself does not require such certification as a condition. The Board circular could prescribe certificates only as a verification mechanism, and not as an additional mandatory requirement that defeats the substantive exemption benefit. The text states that benefit had already been granted wherever certificates were available, and refusal for past consignments based solely on later-unavailable certificates was unjustified. On that basis, denial of abatement for want of GTA certificates was not sustainable, and the service tax demand on the disputed consignments was unsustainable. en-us Tue, 03 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 29 Jul 2018 12:27:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364409 Abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. cannot be denied merely because GTA certificates were not produced, where the notification itself does not require such certification as a condition. The Board circular could prescribe certificates only as a verification mechanism, and not as an additional mandatory requirement that defeats the substantive exemption benefit. The text states that benefit had already been granted wherever certificates were available, and refusal for past consignments based solely on later-unavailable certificates was unjustified. On that basis, denial of abatement for want of GTA certificates was not sustainable, and the service tax demand on the disputed consignments was unsustainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 03 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364409