Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Arani Agro Oil Industries Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise on 22 November, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE Stay and Appeal No:ST/Stay/476/2009 in ST/782/2009 (Arising out of Revision Order-in-Original No. 14/2009(PVR) dated 09.06.2009 passed by The Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam) 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 Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? M/s. Arani Agro Oil Industries Ltd. Appellant Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise Visakhapatnam Respondent
Appearance Ms. Tejasvi Hari Krishna, Advocate, for the appellant Shri M.M. Ravi Rajendran, JDR, for the Respondent CORAM MR. M.V. RAVINDRAN, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MR. P. KARTHIKEYAN, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 22.11.2010 Date of decision:22.11.2010 FINAL ORDER No._______________________2010 Per P. KARTHIKEYAN (Oral) This stay application is filed by M/s. Arani Agro Oil Industries Ltd. praying for waiver of pre-deposit of the dues adjudged against them in the impugned order. After hearing both sides on the stay application for sometime, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed without a further hearing and we take up the appeal after allowing the stay application.
2. The appellant herein had availed services classified under 'Goods Transport Agency' during the period January, 2005 to February, 2006. The impugned order denied the benefit of Notification Nos. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 and 01/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. The benefit was exempted from service tax in excess of 75% of the tax due. The demand pertains to GTA service availed by the appellant during the year September, 2005 to February, 2006. The said benefit was allowed to the appellants for the previous period. The impugned order is challenged on the basis that the appellants had satisfied the necessary conditions prescribed in the Notification 32/2004-ST. They had filed a consolidated certificate certifying that in respect of the impugned services, the service provider had not availed the benefit under the CENVAT Scheme nor the benefit extended under Notification No. 12/2003-ST. The impugned order held that the appellant was required to have the same declaration endorsed on the consignment note covering each consignment. The demand is confirmed w.e.f. September, 2005 for the reason that the CBEC had issued a Circular requiring the appellants to have the declaration of the service provider endorsed on each consignment note. The learned Counsel, reiterating the grounds raised in the appeal, submits that the same dispute has been settled in favour of the assessee in a number of decisions of the Tribunal, for instance, Texport Garments Vs. CST, Bangalore [2010 (18) STR 47 (Tri.-Bang.)] and the CCE, Vizag Vs. M/s. A.P. Paper Mills Ltd. [2010 (17) STR 242 (Tri.-Bang.)]. The Tribunal had held in these decisions that a recipient of GTA service is not required to furnish evidence of GTA not availing benefit of Cenvat scheme to qualify for the benefit of Notification 32/2004-ST. It was also held that the requirements prescribed in the Circular cannot override the conditions prescribed in the Notification. The appellants have satisfied the conditions of the Notification.
3. We have also heard the learned DR for the Revenue.
4. We find that vide the orders of the Tribunal, relied on by the appellants, it has been decided that recipient of GTA service was not required to furnish evidence of not availing cenvat scheme to qualify for the disputed benefit. Moreover, the benefit is denied for the reason that declaration of GTA as regards not availing the Cenvat credit was not available on each consignment note. We find that there is no such condition in the notification. Notification benefit should be allowed also for the period after issue of Circular based on the consolidated declaration obtained from GTA. The Circular of CBEC cannot prescribe a condition not present in the Notification. In the circumstances, we find that the impugned order is not in accordance with law. We set aside the same and allow this appeal. The stay petition also gets disposed of.
(Pronounced and dictated in open Court) (P. KARTHIKEYAN) Member (T) (M.V. RAVINDRAN) Member (J) /pr/