2023 (9) TMI 1271 - HC - Customs

Amendment in the shipping bill - interpretation of statute - Section 149 ands the Notification dated 29 June 2012 - Allowing the amendment of documents filed with the Commissioner of Customs at the time of export of Gold Jewellery and Gold Medallions, purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 149 of Drawback Act - HELD THAT - There is no gainsaying that Section 149 of the Act has to be read in conjunction with the requirement spelt out in the above Notification dated 29 June 2012. A careful perusal of Section 149 of the Act shows that firstly, it provides no period of limitation for filing of an application for amendment of relevant documents in order to seek rebate or any other benefit. Secondly, it does not provide for any reasons that may enable an exporter to claim amendments in the shipping documents. Thirdly, the proposed amendment in the shipping bills can be allowed by the Proper Officer subject to the only rider that same is based on documentary evidence that must be shown to be in existence at the time the goods were exported. Before alluding to the Notification dated 29 June 2012, it is pertinent to mention that admittedly, the goods already stood exported from time to time and the respondents were otherwise entitled to claim STR paid on input services, which had been prescribed at a fixed rate of 0.06% of the FOB value of exported goods falling under CTH 71 vide serial No. 162 of the schedule to the notification. Further, no dispute was raised by the appellant to the assertion/declaration by the respondents in their request letter dated 14 March 2017 that the sales remittances had already been received on each of the export consignments as per the RBI guidelines. It is borne out from the record that the respondents in their appeal before the learned CESTAT had specifically made a categorical assertion in ground (R) that they had suffered Service Tax on the input services and apparently had annexed relevant details, although the same were not alluded to while passing the impugned order dated 24 February 2020. We observe that learned counsel for the appellant was all at sea to indicate which document was amiss, or as to which information or declaration was lacking that were not filed along with the shipping bills/orders at the time of making the exports. Thus, apparently all the relevant documents which could have been filed at the time of exports, were available as it is in original form and format without any change as such and were submitted along with the application for amendment of the shipping bills etc. on 14 March 2017. The respondents specifically stated in the application that no claim would be made by them under Paragraph (3) of the Relevant Notification - there was no reason to hold otherwise and nothing more was required to be done on the part of the respondents. Therefore, there are no legal infirmity, perversity or incorrect approach adopted by the learned CESTAT in passing the impugned orders dated 24 February 2020 thereby allowing the respondents the benefit of STR based on the exports made during the relevant period. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Applicability of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 for amendment of documents to claim Service Tax Rebate (STR).
2. Requirement of documentary evidence for amendment under Section 149.
3. Compliance with Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.6.2012 for claiming STR.

Summary:

Issue 1: Applicability of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962

The High Court addressed whether Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, permits amendments to shipping bills for claiming STR under Paragraph 2 of Notification No. 41/2012-ST. The Court observed that Section 149 allows amendments based on documentary evidence existing at the time of export. The CESTAT had allowed the amendments, noting that the required declaration was the only amendment sought and that all necessary documents were in existence at the time of export. The Court upheld this interpretation, emphasizing that Section 149 does not prescribe a limitation period or specific reasons for amendments.

Issue 2: Requirement of Documentary Evidence

The Court examined whether the respondents provided sufficient documentary evidence to support their amendment applications. It was noted that the respondents had submitted all relevant documents, including shipping bills, invoices, and bank realization certificates, with their amendment applications. The Court found that the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in rejecting the amendments based on the absence of additional documentary evidence, which was not required under Paragraph 2 of the Notification. The Court cited precedents supporting the view that amendments should be allowed if based on existing documentary evidence.

Issue 3: Compliance with Notification No. 41/2012-ST

The Court analyzed the compliance requirements under Notification No. 41/2012-ST. It was argued by the appellant that the respondents failed to declare the payment of service tax on specified services at the time of filing shipping bills. However, the Court found that the respondents had complied with the notification by submitting all necessary documents and declarations. The Court rejected the appellant's reliance on the decision in M/s. Eagle Flasks Industries Ltd., distinguishing it based on the specific context of excise duty exemption. The Court concluded that the respondents fulfilled the conditions of the notification and were entitled to the claimed STR.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the CESTAT's decision to allow the amendments under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, and granting the respondents the benefit of STR based on the exports made during the relevant period. The Court found no legal infirmity or incorrect approach in the CESTAT's orders.