TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 259
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eriod April 2005 to March 2006. It was alleged that the appellants have paid service tax without availing abatement the period preceding and succeeding the period in question. It was alleged that the appellants paid service tax on behalf of GTAs without having such declaration or endorsement on the consignment note to the effect that they have not availed CENVAT credit. It was also alleged that the appellants have not paid service tax for the period January 2005 to March 2005 on the gross value of turnover. The show-cause notice was issued to the appellants on above lines and the same was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No.83/2007 dated 30.7.2007 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax. The appellants preferred an appeal before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te and it was not practice of the trade. The Hon'ble Finance Minister has amply clarified during the budget speech in July 2004 that it was not the intent to tax the owners of goods vehicles or truck operators; even assuming but not admitting that the said petty transporters were GTA, the appellants were not disentitled to claim abatement of 75% based on the declaration provided by each transporter. The authorities also failed to appreciate that none can take or use CENVAT credit unless they are registered with the Central Excise department or Service Tax department; therefore, insistence of declaration by the GTA in the consignment note or invoices is a curable defect. Until September 2006, they had debited the GTA service tax in the CENVA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce were deemed to be output service, hence, utilization of CENVAT credit is proper. They rely upon CCE vs. Flowserve Microfinish Valves Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 3.1 The appellants contended that from April 2005 to March 2006, debit of CENVAT credit is justified on the grounds that claim of abatement defended by producing declaration from transporters (placed at page 32-44 of the appeal paper book), the period being prior to the issuance of order dated 12.3.2007 by CBEC under Section 35B. The declarations merit acceptance as held by Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Advance Diesel Eng. P. Ltd.: 2008 (10) STR 201 (Tri.-Ahmd.). Appellants further contended that as per Section 65(50b), only a person who issues consignment notes against receipt of good....