TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1945X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I P. K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Chanchal Bhattacharya, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri A. K. Biswas, Suptd. (AR) for the Respondent(s) ORDER Per Bench: The facts of the case are that the appellant as recipient of GTA service is liable to pay service tax in terms of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. They had paid service tax on freight paid to GTA by taking abatement of 75% in terms of Notification No. 32/2004ST dated 03.12.2004. 2. The Show Cause Notice dated 05.04.2006 was issued alleging that the assessee being the service receiver is not entitled to get the benefit of exemption N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not available on consignment note issued prior to 27.07.2005, the Board had provided clarification in circular no. 137/154/2008-CX.r dated 21.08.2008, that a general declaration from the GTA would be sufficient. (iii) General declaration of all the transporters engaged by the appellant have been submitted and considered for allowing abatement for the period prior to 27.07.2005. Said declarations should have been considered for allowing abatement for subsequent two months i. e. for the period 27.07.2005 to 30.09.2005 also during which their freight bill was paid inasmuch as the relevant consignment notes were raised prior to 27.07.2005. The Tribunal (Ahmedabad) in the case as reported in 2016 (10) TMI 459 held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry. 4. The Ld. D. R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the discussion and findings of the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. On perusal of the records, we find that the period of dispute is from 27.07.2005 to 30.09.2005. 7. We also observed that the issue is no more res-integra in view of the decision of this Bench its vide FO/A/75130-75133/2015 as reported in 2015 (1) TMI 1258- CESTAT, Kolkata in the case of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur and Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Patna. Para 4 of the order is reproduced below:- 4. Heard both sides and peru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been made in respect of each and every consignment. As such, Revenue s objection that an annual declaration would not serve the purpose, cannot be appreciated. 7. We are in agreement with the aforesaid judgments. In absence of any particular format, prescribed under the respective notifications, the department insisting for declaration on each consignment note for allowing the abatement under the said Notifications is un-sustainable in law. In these circumstances, the declarations filed by the goods transport agencies (GTA) in their letter-heads or in the respective payment bills certifying that they have not availed CENVAT Credit on inputs or capital goods nor availed the benefit of exemption Notification 12/2003-ST dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
