Case Law Details
CCE Vs Kashi Vishwanath & Sons (Cestat Delhi)- Tribunal decision in the case of Sri Venkata Balaji Jute (P) Ltd Vs CCED Vishkhapatnam reported in 2010 (19) STR 403 wherein by following the Tribunal decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vapi Vs Uni mark Remedies Ltd reported in 2009 (15) STR 254 (Trib), it has been that the Notification does not require consignmentwise declaration on consignment notes. As regards non-availment of credit and the declaration, even though not on the consignment notes is sufficient for allowing the benefit of Notification No. 32/04. To the same effect is the Tribunal decision in the case of CCE Vs Nerala Paper Mills Pvt Ltd reported in 2009 (14) STR 374 (Trib.- Ahmd.) . As the issue is covered in favour of the respondents by above referred decisions of the Tribunal, we find no infirmity in the view adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, appeal field by the Revenue is rejected.
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
ST/Appeal No. 2/2008
Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 48-49/ST/Alld/07 Dated: 26.9.2007
Date of Decision: 20.01.2011
CCE, ALLAHABAD
Vs
M/s KASHI VISHWANATH & SONS
FINAL ORDER NO.ST/22/2011
Per: Archana Wadhwa:
Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal.
2. After hearing both sides, we find that a very short issue is involved. The respondents, who are liable to pay service tax on the goods transport agency services received by them, have availed the benefit of Notification No. 32/04-ST dated 3.12.2004. The said Notification grants abatement to the extent of 75% of taxable services on goods transport, subject to the condition that the goods transport agency has not availed credit on inputs and capital goods used for providing the taxable services and has also not availed the benefit of Notification No. 12/03-ST dated 20.6.03.
3. As the respondents did not submit the required declaration in proper format, Revenue entertained a view that they were not entitled to the 75% abatement in terms of Notification No. 32/04-ST. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against them by way of show cause notice dated 13.10.06 proposing to confirm the demand of Rs. 6,917/-. The said show cause notice culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority confirming the demand and imposing penalties. However, on appeal against the above order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the same on the ground that goods transport agency has given declarations to the above effect. This suffices the requirement of the notification condition in as much as, the notification does not provide any format for filing the declaration. He further held that the Board’s Circular No. B-1/6/05-TRU dated 27.7.05 cannot introduce any format for filing declaration in the Notification. The fact of non-availment of cenvat credit etc. can be proved by any manner. He also observed that the Revenue has nowhere disputed that the goods transport agency has not availed the benefit of modvat credit or of Notification No. 12/03. He accordingly allowed the appeal.
4. Hence the present appeal by the Revenue.
5. We find that the issue is no more res-integra and stands settled by various decisions of the Tribunal. One such reference can be made to the Tribunal decision in the case of Sri Venkata Balaji Jute (P) Ltd Vs CCED Vishkhapatnam reported in 2010 (19) STR 403 wherein by following the Tribunal decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vapi Vs Unimark Remedies Ltd reported in 2009 (15) STR 254 (Trib), it has been that the Notification does not require consignment -wise declaration on consignment notes. As regards non-availment of credit and the declaration, even though not on the consignment notes is sufficient for allowing the benefit of Notification No. 32/04. To the same effect is the Tribunal decision in the case of CCE Vs Nerala Paper Mills Pvt Ltd reported in 2009 (14) STR 374 (Trib.- Ahmd.) . As the issue is covered in favor of the respondents by above referred decisions of the Tribunal, we find no infirmity in the view adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, appeal field by the Revenue is rejected.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)
