Commissioner Of Service Tax, Kolkata @ Commissioner Of CGST And Cx, Kolkata South Commissionerate vs. M/S Bharat Petroleum Corporation LTD.

Facts

The Commissioner of Service Tax, Kolkata (appellant) filed an appeal against an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata. The CESTAT had upheld an order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata. The dispute concerns the availability of an exemption under Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 for services provided by M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (respondent). The appellant contended that the respondent failed to comply with the conditions of the notification, specifically regarding declarations on consignment notes. The respondent had made a separate declaration, which the appellant argued was not in compliance with the notification and Circular No. B1/6/2005-Tru dated 27.7.2005.

Held

The Court held that the appeal filed by the revenue lacked substance. The Court found that the circular relied upon by the appellant merely provided a mechanism for making a declaration on the consignment note as a sufficient compliance for availing abatement. The circular did not narrow down the notification and did not prohibit making a declaration separately. The Court noted that the Commissioner of Central Excise, in his order-in-original, had exhaustively dealt with the issue and found that the conditions were satisfied by the assessee, dropping the proceedings. The Tribunal had concurred with these findings. The Court concluded that the findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner and affirmed by the Tribunal were based on relevant materials, and no substantial question of law arose from the impugned order. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent, M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., fulfilled the conditions of Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 by making a separate declaration, thereby entitling them to the service tax exemption, or if the declaration must be endorsed on the consignment note as per Circular No. B1/6/2005-Tru dated 27.7.2005? The appellant argued that the declaration by the Goods Transport Agency (GTA) on the consignment note was not made in compliance with the two conditions of Notification No. 32/2004-ST, namely, that 'neither credit on inputs or capital goods used for provision of service has been taken nor the benefit of notification no.12/2003-ST has been taken'. The appellant further contended that a separate declaration by the GTA does not satisfy the notification's requirements, citing Circular No. B1/6/2005-Tru which provides a mechanism for endorsement on the consignment note and not separate declarations. The respondent did not file any arguments.