Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Ores Ispat Pvt Ltd. vs Coms C Ex, Cus &Amp; Service Tax - Bbsr-Ii on 26 September, 2018
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Appeal No. ST/81/2010
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 46/ST/BBSR-II/2009 dated
08/12/2009 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Central excise,
Customs & Service tax, Bhubaneswar.
M/s. Ores Ispat Pvt. Ltd.
Appellant (s)
Vs.
CCE & ST, BBSR-II
Respondent (S)
Appearance:
None, for the Appellant (s) Shri S. S. Chattopadhyay, Suptd. (A. R.) for the Revenue CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE SHRI V. PADMANABHAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: -25.09.2018 Order No. FO/76678/2018 PER SHRI V. PADMANABHAN The present appeal is filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 46/ST/BBSR-II/2009 dated 08/12/2009. The appellant is a manufacturer of Sponge Iron and are recipients of Goods Transport Agency Service for transportation of goods. They paid the Service Tax as the consignor or consignee. The dispute is for the period from October 2006 to September 2007. During this period, the appellant discharged the Service Tax liability under GTA either as consignor or consignee, by availing the abatement @ 75% as per the Notification No. 01/2006-ST dated 01/03.2006.
2. After scrutinizing the records of the assesssee, the Revenue Authorities were of the view that the appellant will not be entitled to 2 Appeal No. ST/81/2010 the benefit of abatement, as per the above Notification since they have not fulfilled the conditions specified therein. Specifically, the Revenue was of the view that one of the conditions of the notification that the Service provider should not avail the benefit of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, has not been satisfied. Consequently, the differential service tax, stands demanded by the original authority and upheld by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeal has been filed.
3. When the appeal was called today, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. Revenue is represented by S.S Chattopadhyay, the Ld. DR.
4. After hearing the Ld. DR for the Revenue and perusing the appeal record, it is seen that the appellant's claim is that they have satisfied the both conditions specified in Notification No.01/2006-ST dated 01/03/2006. It is their claim that at the time of filing the ST-3, half-yearly return, the freight bills have been produced before the Range Officer which have been duly stamped indicating that no Cenvat Credit has been availed. It has further been declared that the Service provider has not availed the benefits of Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20/06/2003, which is the second condition specified in the said Notification. For the purposes of verification, they have attached the copies of all transport bills for perusal of the Tribunal.
5. After perusing the said documents enclosed with the appeal paper book, we note that every transport document has been stamped and attested to the effect that no Cenvat Credit has been availed and 3 Appeal No. ST/81/2010 no benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST dated 20/06/2003 has been availed.
6. In view of the above, we are of the view that the appellant will be entitled to the benefit of the abatement under the Notification No. 01/2006. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court.) Sd/- Sd/-
(P. K. CHOUDHARY) (V. PADMANABHAN) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Pooja