2017 (5) TMI 892 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - rejection on the ground of non-fulfilment of the condition of the N/N. 17/2009-ST dated 7.7.2009 as the relevant details of shipping bills etc. were not mentioned in the respective invoices of service provider - Held that - reliance was placed in the case of in the case of Principal Commissioner of S.T. Vs. R.R. Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (9) TMI 636 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT where it has been held that if notification puts the requirement of fulfilment of the condition it cannot be waived as mere procedural - when the condition of N/N. 17/2009-ST has not been fulfilled the impugned order is sustained - appeal dismissed - decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection under Notification No. 17/2009-ST due to non-fulfillment of conditions.

Analysis:
The appellant, M/s Laxmi Solvex, filed two appeals against Order-in-Appeal No. 280 & 281/2011, where the rejection of the refund claim was upheld. Despite the appellant's absence, the appeals, being more than 6 years old, were decided on merits. The appeals revolved around the non-fulfillment of conditions specified in Notification No. 17/2009-ST, particularly the absence of relevant details of shipping bills and invoices of service providers. Additionally, the lack of details in Lorry Receipts (LR) for transportation of export goods was noted, which were required as per the conditions of the notification.

The learned DR referred to a decision by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of S.T. Vs. R.R. Global Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., emphasizing that conditions specified in notifications cannot be waived as mere procedural requirements but are crucial for establishing eligibility for exemption. The High Court highlighted the importance of strict adherence to statutory requirements, distinguishing between substantial compliance and procedural faults. It was emphasized that if the essence of the statute is affected by non-compliance, strict adherence is necessary, whereas procedural or directory requirements may allow for substantial compliance. In this context, the failure to fulfill the conditions of Notification No. 17/2009-ST led to the dismissal of both appeals on the grounds of lack of merit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court and emphasizing the significance of adhering to statutory requirements for claiming exemptions under the notification. As the conditions specified in the notification were not met, the appeals were dismissed for lacking merit.