2018 (8) TMI 957 - AT - Service Tax

Benefit of abatement - Manpower recruitment service - Goods transport agency service - N/N. 32/2004-ST dated 3.12.2004 - denial on the ground that the appellants could not produce any proof of non-availment of credit of capital goods by the providers of MRS and GTA services - Held that - This Bench has already decided the similar issue in the case of M/s. Pragathi Automation Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (6) TMI 259 - CESTAT BANGALORE where it was held that Before the omission of Explanation to Rule 2(p) of the CENVAT Credit Rules by N/N. 21/2006-CE (NT) by N/N. 21/2006-CE (NT) GTA services were deemed to be output service therefore there was no bar on the utilization of CENVAT credit for payment of such service tax - benefit cannot be denied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Abatement claimed by the appellants under Notification No.32/2004-ST not declared with the Department.
2. Eligibility of the appellants for abatement due to lack of proof of non-availment of credit of capital goods by the providers of "MRS and GTA".
3. Confirmation of demand by the original authority and subsequent orders by the Commissioner (A).
4. Applicability of decisions by the Tribunal in similar cases.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, M/s. San Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., received a show-cause notice from the Department regarding the abatement claimed under Notification No.32/2004-ST, which was allegedly not declared. The Department contended that the appellants were not eligible for the abatement as they failed to provide evidence of non-availment of credit of capital goods by the providers of "MRS and GTA". The original authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,23,214, which was upheld in subsequent orders by the Commissioner (A).

2. The counsel for the appellants argued that the issue was favorably decided in their favor in previous Tribunal cases, citing examples such as CCE vs. Advance Diesel Engineering (P) Ltd., Ganesh Cement Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, CCE vs. Sangam Structurals Ltd., and Lykes Line Ltd. vs. CST. These cases established that a general certificate/declaration by GTA indicating no credit availed was sufficient, and there was no requirement for a certificate for each consignment note.

3. The learned AR for the Revenue acknowledged that the issue was in favor of the assessee. Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Bench found that the issue was indeed covered by the cases cited by the appellants. Additionally, the Bench had previously decided a similar issue in the case of M/s. Pragathi Automation Pvt. Ltd. Based on this, the Bench concluded that there was no merit in the case, and the appeal needed to be allowed with any consequential relief.

4. The judgment was pronounced in Open Court on 24/07/2018, with the Bench relying on previous Tribunal decisions and their own ruling in a similar case to determine the outcome in favor of the appellants.