https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34416 Abatement under the exemption notification could not be denied merely because the Goods Transport Agency's declaration appeared on separate letterheads rather than in the body of the consignment note. The notification required only substantive compliance that the GTA had not taken CENVAT credit on inputs or capital goods and had not availed the specified earlier notification; it did not prescribe a rigid form of proof. The Board's circular treated a declaration in the consignment note as sufficient, not mandatory, and the record showed no allegation of prohibited credit or contrary benefit. The procedural requirement was therefore directory, substantial compliance was established, and the notification benefit remained available. en-us Fri, 26 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34416 Abatement under the exemption notification could not be denied merely because the Goods Transport Agency's declaration appeared on separate letterheads rather than in the body of the consignment note. The notification required only substantive compliance that the GTA had not taken CENVAT credit on inputs or capital goods and had not availed the specified earlier notification; it did not prescribe a rigid form of proof. The Board's circular treated a declaration in the consignment note as sufficient, not mandatory, and the record showed no allegation of prohibited credit or contrary benefit. The procedural requirement was therefore directory, substantial compliance was established, and the notification benefit remained available. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 26 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34416