https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759301 A demand under Notification No. 32/2004-ST was held unsustainable where the adjudication introduced a ground not alleged in the show cause notice; the notice proceeded only on the footing that the assessee was not a goods transport agency, so denial based on alleged non-fulfilment of notification conditions could not be sustained. The abatement benefit was also held admissible because the department did not show that the service provider had taken CENVAT credit or the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST, and a board circular could not add to or override the exemption notification by imposing a further declaration requirement. The denial of abatement was therefore set aside. en-us Mon, 23 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Sep 2024 17:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759301 A demand under Notification No. 32/2004-ST was held unsustainable where the adjudication introduced a ground not alleged in the show cause notice; the notice proceeded only on the footing that the assessee was not a goods transport agency, so denial based on alleged non-fulfilment of notification conditions could not be sustained. The abatement benefit was also held admissible because the department did not show that the service provider had taken CENVAT credit or the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST, and a board circular could not add to or override the exemption notification by imposing a further declaration requirement. The denial of abatement was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 23 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759301