https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365342 Under Notification No. 32/2004-ST, abatement for goods transport agency services on reverse charge basis could not be denied merely because the service provider's declaration was general rather than consignment-specific, where the declaration stated that CENVAT credit on inputs or capital goods had not been availed and that factual assertion was undisputed. The Tribunal treated the notification condition as substantially satisfied, noted that earlier Tribunal rulings supported the same view, and found no contrary distinguishing feature. On that basis, the denial of abatement was unsustainable and the demand founded on that denial could not be maintained. en-us Wed, 18 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Aug 2018 07:20:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365342 Under Notification No. 32/2004-ST, abatement for goods transport agency services on reverse charge basis could not be denied merely because the service provider's declaration was general rather than consignment-specific, where the declaration stated that CENVAT credit on inputs or capital goods had not been availed and that factual assertion was undisputed. The Tribunal treated the notification condition as substantially satisfied, noted that earlier Tribunal rulings supported the same view, and found no contrary distinguishing feature. On that basis, the denial of abatement was unsustainable and the demand founded on that denial could not be maintained. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 18 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365342