2019 (11) TMI 1161 - AT - Service Tax

GTA Services - benefit of N/N. 31/2012-ST dated 20 June, 2012 - appellant used the services of GTA for movement of the goods for the export purposes - Inasmuch as the export in their case was being undertaken from Land Custom Station and not from the port or air port, the Revenue proposed to deny the benefit of the said Notification on the ground that the same exempts only movement of the goods for export purposes from port or air port and not from land customs - HELD THAT - The original Notification granted exemption to the GTA services availed for transportation of the goods for export purpose up to port or air port. There was no exemption for the said services if the export took place from land custom agent. The land custom station was specifically introduced in the Notification w.e.f. 01 April, 2015 by way of Amending Notification No.04/2015-ST. It is well settled law that the Notification have to be interpreted in the light of the expression used therein. The Notification No.31/2012 clearly mentions only port or air port and there is no ambiguity in the use of the said expression. If an unambiguous language stands used by the Government, legislative intent is not required to be examined. Tribunal being only an interpreter of the notification cannot rewrite the notification by introducing any extraneous words to the same - the land customs station having been introduced in the notification w.e.f. 14 February, 2015, it cannot be held that the exemption was effective from the original date of issuance of the notification even in respect of exports from land customs station. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - The Original Notification prescribes a procedure to be followed by the assessee, which is in the nature of filing of consignment note and EXP1 returns etc. The appellant had followed the said procedure and Revenue was aware of the fact that the exports have taken place from the land customs station. In such a scenario no mala fide can be attributed to the appellant so as to justifiably invoke the longer period of limitation. Penalty - HELD THAT - As we have held absence of any mala fide on the part of the assessee, the penalty imposition upon them is not called for. Accordingly, the entire penalty is set aside. The demand having been raised and confirmed by invoking the longer period has to be held as barred by limitation. However, a part of the demand falls within the limitation period, which shall be re-quantified by Original Adjudicating Authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No.31/2012-ST dated 20 June, 2012 regarding exemption of GTA services for export purposes from land customs station.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Issue of Notification Interpretation:
The case involved the interpretation of Notification No.31/2012-ST dated 20 June, 2012, which granted exemption to GTA services for the transport of goods for export purposes. The dispute arose as the original notification mentioned exemption only for movement of goods from port or airport, excluding land customs stations. The appellant, an exporter of writing paper, utilized GTA services for export from a land customs station, leading to a denial of benefits by the Revenue.

2. Legislative Intent and Amendments:
The Tribunal analyzed the legislative intent behind the notification and the subsequent amendment introduced by Notification No.04/2015-ST dated 01 March, 2015. The amendment expanded the scope of exemption to include export from land customs stations, effective from 01 April, 2015. The appellant argued that the legislative intent was always to exempt GTA services for export, including from land customs stations, and the omission was a mistake.

3. Interpretation and Application of Law:
The Tribunal emphasized that notifications must be interpreted based on the language used, without delving into legislative intent if the language is clear. The original notification explicitly mentioned port or airport without ambiguity. Therefore, the Tribunal could not rewrite the notification to include land customs stations before the effective amendment date. The introduction of land customs station in the notification in 2015 did not retroactively apply to exports before that date.

4. Limitation and Penalty Imposition:
Although the demand was partially within the limitation period, the Tribunal held that no mala fide intent was present on the appellant's part. As the appellant followed the prescribed procedure of filing consignment notes and returns, the longer period of limitation invoked by the Revenue was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the demand amount falling within the limitation period was to be re-quantified. The Tribunal also set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant due to the absence of any mala fide actions.

5. Final Disposition:
In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of both appeals by upholding that the exemption under the notification did not cover exports from land customs stations before the amendment date. The Tribunal re-quantified the demand within the limitation period, considering the absence of mala fide intent by the appellant, and set aside the penalty imposition accordingly.