Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs (Adjudication) Versus M/s Prime Woven Ltd.

2016 (10) TMI 459 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

GTA service - eligibility to avail abatement of 75% of the value of the GTA Services as provided in Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 - subject to the condition that the no CENVAT Credit had been availed and benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003 - Held that:- the certificates issued by the GTA separately can also be considered as sufficient compliance of the said provisions. - Decided in favor of assessee. - Appeal No. ST/164/2009, Application No. ST/CO/65/2009 - O .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s 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 order-in-original. Revenue is in appeal before us, aggrieved by the same. 3. We find that the issue is no more res-integra, in view of the decisions of this Tribun .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e respondents was liable to pay the service tax on Goods Transport Service. Tribunal considered the Notification No. 32/2004-S.T., dated 3-12-2004 which provided for abatement of 75% of the gross amount charged from the customer for the purpose of calculating the liability of service tax subject to the condition that the no CENVAT Credit had been availed and benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003 also had not been availed. 4. Tribunal has also held that the requirements prescr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

illed. 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 app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version