Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Micromatic Grinding vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 3 October, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. III
Service Tax Appeal No. 292 of 2011
Service Tax Stay Application No. 531 of 2011
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 234 to 240-ST/GZB/2010 dated 29.10.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :
the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 :
of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for
publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair :
copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental authorities?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M/s. Micromatic Grinding Appellants Technologies Ltd.
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent
Ghaziabad
Appearance:
Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate for the Appellants
Shri K.K. Jaiswal, SDR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing/decision : 3.10.2011
ORAL ORDER NO . ________________________
Per Archana Wadhwa (for the Bench):
After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalty amount, we proceed to decide the appeal itself with the consent of both sides inasmuch as the issue stands covered by various precedent decisions of the Tribunal.
2. The appellants are GTA service recipient and during the period relevant for the purpose of present appeal i.e. 2006-2007 and 2007-08, they had availed the benefit of abatement in terms of notification No. 32/2004-ST and 1/2006-ST. Exemption in terms of said notification is available subject to the condition that the goods transport agency has not availed any credit of duty paid on inputs or the capital goods used for providing GTA services and has also not availed any benefit in terms of notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20.6.03.
3. It is on record that the GTA providers have produced on record a declaration certifying that no credit stands availed by them and the benefit of notification No. 12/03 also does not stand availed. Inspite of the declaration, the benefit of abatement stands denied by the lower authorities on the ground that such declarations are not made on the body of each relevant consignment but have been made on annual basis.
4. After hearing both sides, we find that the lower authorities have not disputed the factum of declaration made by the transporters. It is also not the Revenues case that the transporters had either availed the credit or the benefit of notification No. 12/2003 ST. The only objection of the Revenue is that transporters have made an annual declaration instead of making declaration on each relevant consignment.
5. The appellants contention is that there is no such requirement of making declaration on each and every relevant consignment, prescribed by the notification in question. The entire gist and intention of the notification is to the effect that double benefit should not be availed by the service provider as well as service receiver. The said purpose is served by filing the annual declaration. He submits that issue is no more res integra and stands settled by various decision of the Tribunal.
6. Learned DR appearing for the revenue, reiterates the finding of lower authorities.
7. After appreciating the submissions made by both sides, we find that the notification itself nowhere lays down as to how the said declaration are required to be made. It is only by one of Boards Circular and clarifications that the Revenue is insisting on making declaration on each and every consignment. Apart from the fact that this is a technical ground, we also note that the GTA providers having made an annual declaration in respect of the consignment, the fact of same would be as if such declarations have been made in respect of each and every consignment. As such, Revenues objection that an annual declaration would not serve the purpose, cannot be appreciated.
8. Apart from the above, we note that issue is covered by various decisions as indicated below:-
(1) CCE& ST vs. Neral Paper Mills Pvt.Ltd.
[2010) (20) STR 601 (Guj);
(2) CCE, Vapi vs. Neral Paper Mills P. Ltd.
[2009(14) STR 374 (Tri-Ahmd)];
(3) Paliwal Home Furnishing vs. CST, Delhi [2011 (22) STR 531 (Tri-Del)];
(4) CCE, Ghaziabad vs. Indus Tube Ltd.
[2011 (22) STR 456 (Tri-Del)];
(5) Sri Venkata Balaji Jute (P) Ltd. vs CCE, Visakhapatnam [2010 (19) STR 403 (Tri-Bang)];
(6) CCE, Vapi vs. Unimark Remedies Ltd.
[2009 (15) STR 254 (Tri-Ahmd)];
(7) Rungta Irrigation Ltd. vs. CCE Visakhapatnam [2010 (18) STR 723 (Tri-Bang)];
(8) Boopalan Electronics vs. CST, Mysore [2010 (19) STR 781 (Tri-Bang)];
(9) R.A.K. Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE Visakhapatnam [2010 (19) STR 751 (Tri-Bang)];
9. In view of the foregoing, we find no reasons to deny the abatement to the appellants and uphold the impugned orders. The same is set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief.
10. Stay petition as also appeal gets disposed of in the above manner.
( Pronounced in the open court )
( Archana Wadhwa ) Member(Judicial)
( Rakesh Kumar ) Member(Technical)
ss
2