2016 (3) TMI 100 - AT - Service Tax

Benefit of exemption Notification No. 18/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 denied - service tax remittances incurred on receipt of Goods Transport Agency services utilised for transportation of exported goods from appellant s factory to the port of export - Held that - Since there was no dispute that the GTA services were used in the export of goods and therefore claim was filed by the appellant, there cannot be said to be a malafide intention in seeking the benefit of exemption, therefore imposition of penalty under Section 76 by the primary authority was unsustainable. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 76 by the primary Authority, was set-aside. Though, the rejection concurrently by the authorities below was also on the ground that GTA services were utilised on to and fro basis for the empty containers which is outside the purview of the exemption Notification in terms of Section 65(105)(zzb), this conclusion is seen to be contrary to the decision of this Tribunal in CCE, Madurai vs. Tata Coffee Limited 2010 (11) TMI 364 - CESTAT, CHENNAI . However, since the concurrent findings on the bar of limitation aspect, are impeccable, no case is made out for appellate interference by us. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Disentitlement of exemption benefits under Notification No. 18/2009-ST for service tax remittances on transportation of exported goods.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer exporting goods, availed exemption benefits under Notification No. 18/2009-ST for service tax remittances on transportation of exported goods. A show cause notice was issued due to perceived non-fulfillment of conditions, leading to an adjudication order disallowing the exemption.

2. The adjudicating authority rejected the appellant's claim based on failure to submit relevant shipping bill copies, claiming exemption on to and fro transportation charges, and being time-barred per the notification's provisions.

3. The primary authority concluded the appellant was disentitled to the exemption, liable for remittance of interest under Section 75, and penalties under Sections 73 and 78, without imposing a penalty under Section 76.

4. The appellant's appeal was rejected by the appellate authority, concurring with the primary authority's rejection grounds. The delay in submitting the claim was a key issue, with the appellate order emphasizing the mandatory requirement of timely submission under the notification.

5. The appellate authority acknowledged the use of GTA services in exporting goods but upheld the disallowance of exemption benefits due to time-barred filing and non-fulfillment of notification conditions. The penalty under Section 76 imposed by the primary authority was set aside.

6. While the authorities below rejected the claim based on the use of GTA services for empty containers, contrary to a Tribunal decision, the appeal was dismissed due to impeccable findings on the limitation aspect, warranting no appellate interference.