2013 (11) TMI 103 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit of CENVAT Credit - ST on GTA services - Penalty u/s 76 and 77 of Chapter V of the Finance act - Eligibility of Abatement under Notification No.34/2004 - Revenue was of the view that the assessee had failed to produce necessary evidences on the consignment notes that the GTA service provider did not avail the benefit of the said Notification No.12/2003-ST and also CENVAT Credit Held that - The Applicant had deposited 25% of the Service Tax amount demanded - they had already placed the details of vouchers and made a categorical statement that there is only one GTA service provider from whom they had received services - the Applicant could able to make out a prima facie case for total waiver thus Pre-deposit of the balance dues waived and its recovery stayed during pendency of the Appeal Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Eligibility of abatement of 75% from the gross value of taxable service under Notification No.34/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA involved an Application seeking waiver of predeposit of CENVAT Credit and penalty imposed under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The issue at hand was the eligibility of abatement of 75% from the gross value of taxable service under Notification No.34/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004. The Applicant had received GTA services during the relevant period and discharged service tax on 25% of the gross value of taxable service, claiming the benefit of the said notification. However, the Department denied this benefit due to the Applicant's alleged failure to provide necessary evidence on the consignment notes regarding the GTA service provider not availing the benefit of the earlier Notification No.12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 and CENVAT Credit.

The Advocate for the Applicant argued that they had only received services from one GTA service provider, M/s. Ashok Parivahan, throughout the period. To support this claim, a chart detailing payments made against vouchers was submitted. Despite producing a certificate to that effect, the demand was confirmed by the Department on the grounds of multiple transporters rendering services to the Applicant. During the adjudication proceeding, the Applicant had already paid a portion of the confirmed amount. The Revenue did not dispute this payment, and the Tribunal noted that the Applicant had deposited 25% of the Service Tax amount demanded.

Upon reviewing the records and the details provided by the Applicant, the Tribunal found that a prima facie case for total waiver was established. It was observed that the Applicant had demonstrated that they had only engaged one GTA service provider and had already made partial payments. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the predeposit of the balance dues adjudged and stayed the recovery during the pendency of the Appeal. The Stay Petition was allowed, and the decision was dictated and pronounced in open court by Dr. D. M. Misra.