https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769413 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was entitled to 75% abatement on freight paid to GTA under Notification 32/2004-S.T. despite paying service tax under reverse charge mechanism. The tribunal relied on Sandoz P. Ltd. precedent and CBEC clarification that abatement is available to any person liable to pay service tax on GTA services. Additionally, the demand was barred by limitation as the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period without evidence of suppression of facts by the appellant. en-us Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Apr 2025 14:44:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769413 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was entitled to 75% abatement on freight paid to GTA under Notification 32/2004-S.T. despite paying service tax under reverse charge mechanism. The tribunal relied on Sandoz P. Ltd. precedent and CBEC clarification that abatement is available to any person liable to pay service tax on GTA services. Additionally, the demand was barred by limitation as the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period without evidence of suppression of facts by the appellant. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 30 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769413