9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nditions of the Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 that the GTA has not availed credit on inputs and/or capital goods, used for providing taxable service, and also has not availed the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003. Further, the exemption under Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 is available for the service provided by GTA and the said benefit would not be available to other persons, who are liable to pay service tax in terms of Notification No. 35/2004-St dated 03.12.2004. In the instant case, since the unit is not the GTA, hence, alleging that benefit of the Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 is not available to the unit and it is liable to pay the service tax on full amount of the fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (41) STR 431 (Tri.-Del.). 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. We find that the question involved in this appeal is whether the respondents are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 and Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 1.3.2006. The only ground of the Revenue is that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered compliance with the conditions of the Notification No. 32/2004-ST inasmuch as all the relevant LRs/consignment notes had not been scrutinized by him but the scrutiny was on sample basis. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded the finding in the order as follows:- "6. In the instant case the adjudicating authority has demanded differential Service tax on GTA services received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... availed benefit of notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003. In this respect I find that the department has not provided any evidence in this case to show that GTA have availed credit on inputs and capital goods used for providing taxable service or that they have availed the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003 dated 20.06.2003 which is a must in this case. Further I find that the appellants have submitted that they have followed the prescribed procedure in as much as the required declaration in terms of the Board s circular is there on the LR/consignment notes and sample copies of the same were put before the lower authority. On perusal of the defence reply of the appellants as mentioned in the impugned order, I find that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
