TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the benefit without obtaining endorsement on individual consignment notes prior to September 2005 - Appeal is allowed - ST/988/2009 - 38/2011 - Dated:- 26-11-2010 - Shri P. Karthikeyan, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri K.S. Ramesh, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M.M. Ravi Rajendran, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. This appeal filed by M/s. Krebs Biochemicals Industries Ltd., Visakhapatnam is directed against Order-in-Revision No. 37/2009 dated 31-8-2009, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam-II Commissionerate. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner revised an order of the original authority and demanded service tax of Rs. 35,128/- and imposed penalty on the appellants under Section 76 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, wherein it was clarified that if the conditions of the exemption notification had been satisfied, it would be sufficient for availing the benefit under the said Notification. He found that the assessee had satisfied the conditions of the Notification. 3. Initiating proceedings under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act), the Commissioner passed the impugned order after due process of law. He observed that vide Circular No. B-1/6/2005-TRU, dated 27-7-2005 read with Section 37B order No. 5/1/2007-S.T., dated 12-3-2007, for availing the benefit of abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-S.T., dated 3-12-2004, the requisite declarations had to be on the consignment note/s itself. The re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Commissioner is contrary to the clarification issued by the Board. The Circular dated 21-8-08 did not contain anything to conclude that the benefit of Notification on the basis of general declaration was available only for the period up to August 2005. It is claimed that the requirement that a declaration on the consignment note to the effect that the conditions of the Notification have been satisfied prescribed in Circular dated 27-7-2005 was not a condition of the Notification. The Commissioner allowed the benefit of the Notification for the period up to August 2005 and denied the benefit only for the month of September 2005. This was for the reason that as per the Circular, general declaration was sufficient instead of declaratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s issued. The benefit was allowed also for the services availed in the month of August 2005. I find that the CBEC Circular does not introduce an additional condition in the Notification No. 32/2004-S.T., dated 3-12-2004. The assessee had followed the same procedure it had followed up to August 2005 in September 2005. I find that the assessees was allowed the benefit without obtaining endorsement on individual consignment notes prior to September 2005. Therefore, I find no legal reason for denying the assessee the benefit of notification in September 2005. I find that the assessee was legitimately entitled to the benefit it had availed and approved by the original authority. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
