2014 (7) TMI 1083

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... interest thereof and penalty on the ground that the appellant had incorrectly discharged the Service Tax liability under the category of Goods Transport Agency services only on an amount of 25% of the freight paid. 4. This is a second round of litigation before the Tribunal. In the first round of litigation, on a very same issue, this Bench vide Order No.A/429/WZB/AHD/2012, dt.28.03.2012 remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh based upon the ratio which has been laid down by the Tribunal. While remanding the matter, the Bench had kept all the issue open. The adjudicating authority, in remand proceedings, reduced the Service Tax liability, holding that upto 01.03.2008 the appellant is not eli....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as before the Tribunal. Despite that the adjudicating authority has not sought any verification as is now sought by the ld.Departmental Representative. 8. Be that as it may, we find that the issue is no more res integra and has been settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, wherein it has been held that the service recipient who discharges the Service Tax liability under Goods Transport Agency services, is eligible to claim abatement of 75% of the amount of freight paid by him. We reproduce the entire judgment. Being aggrieved by the order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), dated 25-2-2010 [2010 (18) S.T.R. 611 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] the present appellant has preferred an appeal u/s. 35G of Central Excise A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nts placed before this Court. 3. Respondent is engaged in manufacture of P&P medicaments and is also engaged in providing taxable service under the category of 'Technical Inspection & Certification Service' and in the capacity of service receiver, the respondents was liable to pay the service tax on 'Goods Transport Service'. Tribunal considered the Notification No. 32/2004-S.T., dated 3-12-2004 which provided for abatement of 75% of the gross amount charged from the customer for the purpose of calculating the liability of service tax subject to the condition that the no CENVAT Credit had been availed and benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003 also had not been availed. 4.?Tribunal also held that the requirements pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 5. Similar such issue had arisen for our consideration in Tax Appeal No. 523 of 2010. The said Tax Appeal has been dismissed in the following manner: Department is in appeal against the judgment of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short), dated 6-8-2009 by which appeal of the department came to be dismissed. The issue pertains to filing of general declaration instead of consignment-wise declaration by assessee declaring that cenvat credit is not available. Against the decision of the competent authority dated 7-1-2009, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that assessee is eligible to claim the benefit of exemption on the ground that procedure was substantially complied wit....