Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (10) TMI 459

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ant : Shri Amit Mishra, Authorised Representative For the Respondent : Shri P. P. Jadeja, Advocate ORDER Per : Mr. P. M. Saleem Heard both sides and perused the records. 2. On careful consideration of the arguments of both sides and examination of the records, we find that the issue herein is whether the respondents are eligible to take the abatement of 75% of the value of the GTA Services as provided in Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004. The original adjudicating authority disallowed the same on the ground that the respondents have not followed the procedures prescribed. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the respondents have made sufficient compliance of the said provisions, and set-aside the or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fication whereby the service receiver is liable to pay the tax. The question to be decided is that how exactly it should be determined as to whether the conditions are fulfilled. The Board had clarified that the endorsement has to be made on the consignment note. Further, we have to take note of the fact that the notification, as such, does not stipulate any such condition. Notification requiring the receiver of the service to pay the tax also does not stipulate any such condition. Therefore, the requirements prescribed by the Board as per circular cannot be mandatory and cannot be used for denying substantive rights. It is not the case of the Revenue that the appellants have not received the service or service tax has not been paid. Theref .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal in the impugned orders. Issues are purely questions of fact and no substantial questions of law are arising. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. 4. The Tribunal in a recent decision in the case of Radhu Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad [2016 (41) S.T.R. 574 (Tri.-Del.)] in an identical case, has held similarly. 5. It is observed that Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order-in-appeal has examined the facts and records of the instant case in detail, and has arrived at a conclusion that the certificates issued by the GTA separately can also be considered as sufficient compliance of the said provisions. We do not find any reason to interfere with his f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates