2015 (2) TMI 145 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of rebate claim - Export of Business Auxiliary Services - Notification No. 12/2005-ST dated 19.04.2005 - Held that - Conditions prescribed in the Notification, have admittedly been complied with by the appellant. However the procedure was not followed to the extent that declaration was filed after the export of services. I note that the contents of the declaration are not such, as cannot be verified from the records maintained. Records such as invoice on which input tax credit is availed and records indicating export of services will not reveal any information which is not verifiable later. Further the learned Counsel has made a statement that there has been no duplication of refund and they have not availed refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the Notification No. 12/2005-ST simultaneously. Further the finding of the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) clearly indicated that the appellant had not availed CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The contravention of not following the procedure of filing the declaration is indeed a procedural formality, for contravention of which substantial justice cannot be denied relying on the case of Convergys India Pvt. Ltd (2009 (5) TMI 50 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI). In view of the above the rebate is sanctioned - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of rebate claim under Notification No. 12/2005-ST due to procedural non-compliance.

Analysis:
The appellant, a provider of "Business Auxiliary Services," appealed against the rejection of a rebate claim of Rs. 2,40,182 under Notification No. 12/2005-ST. The claim was rejected as the declaration required under the notification was filed after the export of services, contrary to the procedural requirement. The appellant regularly filed refund claims under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules but opted for a rebate claim for a specific period. The appellant contended that all conditions of the notification were met, citing a case law to support their argument. The appellant clarified that there was no duplication of refund claims under different rules. The respondent emphasized the importance of complying with the notification's conditions, stating that non-compliance should result in denial of benefits.

The Tribunal examined the conditions and limitations specified in Notification No. 12/2005-ST for granting rebates on inputs and input services used in exported taxable services. Despite the appellant fulfilling all conditions except timely filing of the declaration, the Tribunal noted that the declaration's contents were verifiable from maintained records. The appellant's assertion of no duplication of refund claims under different rules was accepted. It was confirmed that the appellant had not availed CENVAT credit under Rule 5 simultaneously with the rebate claim. The Tribunal considered the procedural lapse of late declaration filing as a mere formality, not affecting substantial justice, relying on precedent. Consequently, the Tribunal sanctioned the rebate and allowed the appeal against the rejection of the claim.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the procedural non-compliance regarding the timing of filing the declaration under Notification No. 12/2005-ST for the rebate claim. Despite the delay, the Tribunal found that the substantive requirements were met, no duplication of claims existed, and the procedural lapse did not warrant denial of the rebate claim. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural requirements while ensuring that substantial justice is not compromised due to technicalities.