ORDER
P.G. Chacko Member (J)
1. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I am of the view that the appeal itself requires to be finally disposed of. Accordingly, after dispensing with predeposit, I take up the appeal.
2. During the period January-April, 2005, the appellants had received Goods Transport Agency (GTA) service. As required by the relevant provisions of law, they paid Service Tax on the freight incurred by them, after availing the benefit of Notification No. 32/2004-ST. The said Notification allowed abatement to the extent of 75% of the gross amount of freight for the purpose of payment of Service tax subject to two conditions viz. (a) the service provider should not have availed CENVAT credit and (b) the service provider should not have availed the benefit of Notification No. 12/2003-ST. The assessee was required, under Notification No. 32/2004-ST, to produce the service provider’s declaration to satisfy the two conditions. Though this declaration was produced by the appellants, the same was not accepted by the original authority and, consequently, the above abatement was denied to the assessee resulting in demand of differential tax of Rs. 1,51,650/-. Before the first appellate authority, the assessee filed revised declarations of the service provider but the same were also rejected, with the result that the decision of the lower authority came to be affirmed. Hence the present appeal.
3. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I note that additional documents have been filed by the appellants in their endeavour to establish that the conditions of Notification No. 32/2004-ST have been duly complied with and that they are entitled to the benefit of abatement. It appears from the records that the defects in the service provider’s declarations, pointed out by the lower authorities, are not serious. Before the original authority, there was no attempt by the assessee to cure these defects. Their attempt to cure the defects before the appellate authority was not successful. That attempt was not complete either. Before the Tribunal, the appellants have sought to establish, by producing additional documents, that the conditions of Notification No. 32/2004-ST have been fully satisfied. I am of the view that the appellants should do this appropriately before the original authority. Accordingly, the orders of both the authorities are set aside and this case is remanded to the original authority for fresh decision. It is made clear that all the relevant documents filed by the party before the Commissioner (Appeals) and this Tribunal shall be admitted and examined by the original authority and an effective opportunity of being heard shall be given to the party.
4. The appeal stands allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)