2007 (12) TMI 133 - AT - Service Tax

Delay in filing declaration of export of service whether rebate admissible or not - Commissioner (Appeals) condoned the delay in filing declaration on the ground that introduction of the Notification is very new to the service industry - there is no dispute of export of goods and the alleged irregularity was occurred just introduction of the Notification for rebate on export service, therefore, the Comm. (A) rightly condoned the delay of filing declaration revenue s appeal rejected

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing declaration of export of service.
2. Condonation of delay in filing declaration.
3. Compliance with Notification on rebate of service tax for export services.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, which set aside the adjudication order and condoned the delay in filing the declaration of export of service. The adjudicating authority was directed to verify the claim of export of service by the respondent. The Revenue argued that the respondent did not follow the procedures stipulated in the Notification for claiming rebate of service tax, making the claim unacceptable.

2. The Notification in question, No. 12/2005-S.T. dated 19-4-2005, provided rules for claiming rebate on export services. The respondent in this case filed the declaration after the export of service, contrary to the Notification's requirement. The Commissioner (Appeals) condoned the delay in filing the declaration, citing the newness of the Notification to the service industry as the reason for the procedural lapse. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized that substantive benefits should not be denied due to procedural irregularities, especially when the delay was due to lack of awareness of new provisions of the law.

3. The Appellate Tribunal found that the delay in filing the declaration was due to the introduction of the Notification on rebate for export services and that there was no dispute regarding the export of goods. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay in filing the declaration. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural lapses should not hinder the substantial benefits arising from the export of services. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of not denying substantive benefits due to procedural irregularities, especially when the delay in compliance was attributed to lack of awareness of new legal provisions. The judgment underscored the need to balance procedural requirements with the overarching goal of facilitating and promoting export services without unnecessary hindrances.