GTA – Cestat Explains Conditions for Abatement of 75% from the gross freight value under Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004

Abatement of 75% from the gross freight value under Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 as amended is not available in the absence of declaration from the Goods Transport Agents that they had either availed the credit on inputs or capital goods used for providing the taxable service or availed exemption on the cost of goods and materials sold to the recipient of service / consignment note containing transaction particulars.

CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI

ST/S/241/09 & ST/395/2009
ST/S/242/09 & ST/396/2009

Arising out of Order-in-Original No. LTUC/91 & 92/2009-(C) Dated: 31.3.2009
Passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU, Chennai

Date of Decision: 3.3.2011

M/s AREVA T & D INDIA LTD

Vs

CCE (LTU), CHENNAI

FINAL ORDER NO. 408-409/2011
STAY ORDER NO. 246-247/2011

Per: Jyoti Balasundaram:

For the purpose of hearing of these appeals, predeposit of the amount of service tax in dispute together with interest and penalty is waived and recovery thereof stayed. We now take up the appeals itself for final disposal, with the consent of both sides.

2. We have heard both sides. We find that demands of Rs. 92,835/- and Rs. 23,346/- have been confirmed as service tax payable on GTA services during the period April,2005 to March, 2007 and April 2007 to September, 2007, together with interest and a further demand of Rs. 8,963/- representing education cess and higher education cess short paid during the period May to August, 2007, together with interest, and penalty under Section 76, 77 and 78 has been imposed. Tax demand arises for the reason that the assessees had not been able to produce any declaration from the Goods Transport Agents that they had either availed the credit on inputs or capital goods used for providing the taxable service or availed exemption on the cost of goods and materials sold to the recipient of service in terms of Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.06.03 and the assessees were not able to produce the consignment notes showing the above said declaration in terms of Notification No.12/03-ST dated 20.06.03.

3. We find that the abatement of 75% from the gross freight value under Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 as amended is not available in the absence of such declaration/consignment note containing transaction particulars. The Commissioner has therefore rightly confirmed the demand in respect of 14 transporters. The plea of limitation also cannot be considered by the Tribunal as earlier remand order of the Tribunal does not contain any direction for reconsideration of the issue of time bar. We, therefore, uphold the impugned orders and reject the appeals.

(Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court)

NF