Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Cce Vs. Advance Diesel Engineering (P)

Cce vs Advance Diesel Engineering (P)

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad Decided Dec 10, 2007
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/46622

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue
Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cce

Respondent

Advance Diesel Engineering (P)

Legal References

Reported In
(2008)10STR201

Excerpt

1. a common issue is involved in these appeals and therefore they are being disposed off by a common order.2. heard the shri p.v. sheth, learned advocate for m/s advance diesel engines (p) ltd. in appeal no. st/64/2007. none appeared for the other respondents. heard the learned dr for the appellant.3. the respondents are recipients of services under heading 'goods transport agency' and they have been held to be deemed service provider under section 68(2) of the finance act. they have paid the service tax on the services availed by them as deemed service provider and availed the benefit of notification no. 32/2004, which enabled them to pay the service on a value of 25% of the freight paid to the transporter. the benefit of notification no. 32/2004 was available subject to production of a declaration from the transporter that they have not availed the cenvat credit on input/capital goods at their end. the respondents, at the time of taking credit, have not produced the declarations from their transporters.4. however, when the matter was before the commissioner (appeals), the respondents produced the declarations. taking note of this development, the commissioner (appeals) has allowed the benefit of notification no.32/2004. the condition of the notification has been fulfilled substantially though belatedly. no valid grounds have been adduced to interfere with the findings and reasoning adopted by the commissioner (appeals).

Full Judgment

1. A common issue is involved in these appeals and therefore they are being disposed off by a common order.

2. Heard the Shri P.V. Sheth, learned advocate for M/s Advance Diesel Engines (P) Ltd. in Appeal No. ST/64/2007. None appeared for the other respondents. Heard the learned DR for the appellant.

3. The respondents are recipients of services under Heading 'Goods Transport Agency' and they have been held to be deemed service provider under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act. They have paid the service tax on the services availed by them as deemed service provider and availed the benefit of Notification No. 32/2004, which enabled them to pay the service on a value of 25% of the freight paid to the transporter. The benefit of Notification No. 32/2004 was available subject to production of a declaration from the transporter that they have not availed the cenvat credit on input/capital goods at their end. The respondents, at the time of taking credit, have not produced the declarations from their transporters.

4. However, when the matter was before the Commissioner (Appeals), the respondents produced the declarations. Taking note of this development, the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the benefit of Notification No.32/2004. The condition of the notification has been fulfilled substantially though belatedly. No valid grounds have been adduced to interfere with the findings and reasoning adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial