2008 (8) TMI 246 - AT - Service Tax

GTA service - availment of benefit of Notification No. 1/2006 - applicant was not able to produce evidence to the original authority regarding non-availment of Cenvat credit in respect of some consignments from some GTAs - original authority has gone consignment-wise in depth and allowed wherever the evidence was found acceptable - confirmation of demand prima facie is justified stay cannot be granted completely

Summary

Issues: Availment of benefit of Notification No. 1/2006, Evidence of non-availment of Cenvat credit, Confirmation of demand of service tax, Waiver of total dues, Pre-deposit of balance amount, Stay of recovery

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, the dispute revolved around the availment of the benefit of Notification No. 1/2006. The applicant failed to provide evidence to the original authority regarding the non-availment of Cenvat credit for certain consignments from specific Goods Transport Agencies (GTAs) and for all consignments from some GTAs. The Commissioner refrained from confirming a demand exceeding Rs. 60 lakhs for consignments where evidence was presented. However, the applicant only produced certificates from individual transporters later, instead of contemporaneous evidence regarding non-availment of Cenvat credit by some GTA operators. The original authority meticulously examined the evidence on a consignment-wise basis and confirmed a demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 14,19,731, which was deemed justified by the Tribunal due to the lack of a compelling case in favor of the applicant for a waiver of total dues as per the impugned order.

Regarding the financial implications, the Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 6 lakhs within eight weeks from the judgment date. Upon this deposit, the pre-deposit requirement for the remaining service tax balance and the entire penalty amount was waived, and the recovery of these sums was stayed pending the appeal's disposal. The Tribunal set a compliance reporting date of 13-10-2008 for the applicant. The judgment was delivered by Member (T) M. Veeraiyan, and the compliance with the directive was to be reported in an open court setting.