TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1079
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T. Therefore, on that compliance the benefit of 75% abatement in terms of Notification No. 32/2004-S.T. cannot be denied. He submits that on this very effect and issue involved, various judgments have been given in favour of the assessee. He placed reliance on the following judgments as well as board circular which support the case of the appellant:- Commr. of Service Tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd 2012 (27) S.T.R. 127 (Guj.) Lykes Line Ltd Vs. Comm. Service Tax, Mumbai - I 2017 (50) S.T.R. 51 (Tri. Mum) Commr. C., Ex., Patna Vs. Hindustan Co-Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd 2018 (11) TMI 1290 (Tri-Kol) Karuna Agencies Vs. Commr CGST & Central Ex, New Delhi 2023 (12) TMI 438 - CESTAT New Delhi Eastern Coalfields Ltd Vs Commr. C.Ex., & S.T. Bolpur 2013 (29) S.T.R. 314 (Tri - Kolkata) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Vs. Commr. C. Ex., Patna 2013 (29) S.T.R. 524 (Tri- Kol) Circular No. B1/6/2015-TRU Dated 27/07/2005 3. Shri Anand Kumar, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue, reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct") proposing the following questions of law : 1. Whether the Tribunal committed error in interpreting the provisions of Section 37 about binding effect of Circular issued by C.B.E. & C. for availing benefit of exemption notification ? 2. Whether Tribunal committed error in coming to the conclusion that conditions imposed by a Circular for availing exemption is mandatory ? 3. Whether the CESTAT, WZB, Ahmedabad is justified in considering the 'general declarations' given by the GTA (which are not on consignment notes) and confirming the view of Commissioner, Service Tax, Ahmedabad regarding dropping the demand of Service Tax under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 for the period from 27-7-2005 to March, 2007 based on these 'general declarations' given by the GTA (which are not on consignment notes) ? 4. Whether the CESTAT, WZB, Ahmedabad was justified in rejection of departmental appeal and confirming the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner, Service Tax, Ahmedabad who had not charged interest and imposed penalty thereupon as prescribed in Section 75 and Section 76/78 respectively of the Finance Act, 1994 on the demand for the above ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 with as provided in Notification dated 3-12-2004. The Tribunal concurred with the view of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the revenue's appeal relying on the previous decision of the Tribunal reported in 2008 (10) S.T.R. 201. Counsel for the petitioner candidly stated that above decision of the Tribunal was not challenged. In addition to above, we also perused the reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal in the impugned orders. Issues are purely questions of fact and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....03-S.T. should not be availed in respect of the goods transport agency service. He submits that the Board circular prescribing the procedure is not legal and proper for the reason that the Exemption Notification should be read as it is and implemented without importing anything into it. The Notification does not provide any procedure such as obtaining any declaration on the consignment note. Therefore, only on the ground that the procedure laid down in the Board circular is not complied with, the substantive benefit of the exemption cannot be denied unless until the department proves that the appellant has violated the condition of the Notification. He further submits that in the present case, the declaration was indeed obtained from the concerned transport agency on their letter. The same was discarded by the lower authority on the ground that declaration should be obtained on the consignment note. He submits that once a transporter gives a general declaration that no Cenvat credit was availed, in that case there is no need to give declaration of individual consignment. As regards the Notification 12/2003-S.T. in respect of GTA service, no goods is supplied along with the service.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., is not flowing from the Notification. In our view, the Board cannot prescribe any condition or procedure for availing any Exemption Notification. If at all any procedure is required, it should be part and parcel of the Notification, which is not the case here. In the present case, the appellant had provided a declaration from the goods transport agency on their letterhead. It is very surprising to note that the lower authority has discarded the said certificate merely on the ground that the declaration was obtained on the letterhead and not on each consignment note. Once a transport agency gives the declaration that they are not availing the Cenvat credit, that means they are not availing Cenvat credit in all the transactions. Therefore, individual consignment need not bear such declaration. As per the above position, we are of the considered view that the ground on which the Exemption Notification was denied to the appellant is absolutely incorrect. Therefore, the Exemption Notification cannot be denied. As per the judgments cited by the learned counsel, the issue is squarely covered by various judgments. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with cons....