9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The next ground is that EXP 3 Form, which was an intimation to the Department of intending to avail the benefit of the notification was filed by the appellant belatedly - HELD THAT:- The learned counsel for the appellant is agreed upon that this is just a procedural lapse as the half yearly return in EXP 4 that they have availed the exemption was filed within the time limit prescribed with all the requisite documents, which clearly shows that the goods have been exported. The intimation to avail exemption under Form EXP 3 was merely a procedural condition and strict compliance thereof is not required so as to deny the exemption to the appellant. The next issue raised is that the invoices issued by the foreign commission agents were not submitted to the Department - HELD THAT:- The submission on behalf of the appellant is that the commission amount has been paid as per the agency agreement through HDFC bank to the agents bank account after receipt of payments of exported goods from the customers. The details of the export invoices number and date, name of agents, shipping bills, number and date with bank reference number, F.O.B. value and amount of commission paid with copies of HDF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f service tax of Rs.41.21 lakhs by wrongly availing the benefit of the said notification during the period from January, 2013 to February, 2015. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed along with interest and penalty vide order dated 17.12.2017. The appeal filed by the appellant was rejected and hence the present appeal has been preferred before this Tribunal. 3. We have heard Shri Ankit Totuka, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Anand Narayan, learned Authorised Representative for the respondent. 4. Submissions of the learned Counsel is that the appellant is entitle to the benefit of exemption from payment of service tax under notification when they have satisfied all the conditions except one which also has been complied belatedly. Intimation to the Department as per EXP-3 that they are intending to avail exemption is only a procedural condition. On not submitting the invoices, the learned Counsel relied on the provisions of clause (b) of the Proviso to the notification which provides not only to the issuance of invoice, bill or challan, but also to any other document in the name of the exporter. Secondly, substantial benefit cannot be denied on account of procedural ir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat there is no violation of the said condition to dis-entitle the appellant to claim the exemption under the notification. 8. The next ground is that EXP 3 Form, which was an intimation to the Department of intending to avail the benefit of the notification was filed by the appellant belatedly. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that this is just a procedural lapse as the half yearly return in EXP 4 that they have availed the exemption was filed within the time limit prescribed with all the requisite documents, which clearly shows that the goods have been exported. The intimation to avail exemption under Form EXP 3 was merely a procedural condition and strict compliance thereof is not required so as to deny the exemption to the appellant. 9. The next issue raised is that the invoices issued by the foreign commission agents were not submitted to the Department. This being the violation of proviso (b) of the notification, the same is quoted below : Provided that- (b) the invoice, bill or challan, or any other document by whatever name called issued by the service provider to the exporter, on which the exporter intends to avail exemption, shall be issued in the name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 016(10)TMI 242 (Tri-Chan.)=2017(47)STR 195 (T)] The relevant paragraphs of the order are quoted below: 6.3 We are of the opinion that it has been the settled principle of law that substantial benefit of a notification cannot be denied on account of the procedural lapses or infractions. The issue stands already decided in favour of the appellant in the case of M/s. Metro Metro v. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Kanpur [2018 (12) TMI 257-CESTAT Allahabad]. 6 . We find that an identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Coromandel Stamping Stones Limited v. CCE ST, Hyderabad-II reported at 2016 (43) S.T.R. 221 (Tri. - Hyd.). It was observed that non-filing of EXP-1 and EXP- 2 as required under exemption Notification No. 18/2009-S.T. is only a procedural lapse will not result in denial of substantive benefit otherwise available in terms of notification. To the same effect is another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Radiant Textile Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II reported at [2017 (47) S.T.R. 195 (Tri. - Chan.) In another case of Praj Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II [2017 (3) G.S.T.L. 341 (Tri. - Mum.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tax, Chennai- III Commissionerate [2023(9)TMI 80-CESTAT-Chennai] where the benefit of the exemption notification was denied as the details were not furnished within the time limit prescribed for filing EXP-2 returns and also for the reason that the shipping bills showing commission paid, agreement with such foreign agents and original documents were not filed by the appellant therein. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, (Import), Mumbai Vs. M/s Dilip Kumar Company Ors [2018(7) TMI 1826 Supreme Court.] on the principle that the exemption notification should be interpreted strictly and in the event of ambiguity in the notification, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the assessee and it has to be interpreted in favour of the Revenue. There is no quarrel with the principle, which is well settled, however, there is a distinction which has been noted even by the Constitution Bench in Dilip Kumar by referring to the earlier decisions in Collector, Central Excise, Bombay-I Vs. Parle Exports (P) Ltd [ 1988(38) ELT 741 ] and Union of India Ors. Vs. Wood Papers Ltd [ 1990(47)ELT 500 (SC) ] and observed as : 46 . Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
