Procedural lapses cannot defeat export exemption benefit where substantive eligibility is undisputed and reverse charge demand fails.

Procedural non-compliance with EXP-1 and EXP-2 could not defeat the substantive benefit of Notification No. 18/2009-ST where export activity was undisputed and the exporter had received services from an overseas commission agent. The order applied the principle that procedural lapses should not deny an exemption or refund entitlement when the underlying substantive conditions are satisfied. On that basis, the service tax demand under reverse charge mechanism was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 18/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 could be denied for alleged non-filing or defective filing of EXP-1 and EXP-2, and whether the demand of service tax under reverse charge mechanism was sustainable.

Analysis: The appellant was an exporter who had received services from an overseas commission agent. The dispute turned on compliance with the procedural requirements attached to the exemption notification. The order held that the substantial benefit of the notification could not be defeated merely because of procedural non-compliance, particularly where the underlying export activity was undisputed and the appellant would otherwise be entitled to refund of tax paid on such services. Reliance was placed on the principle that procedural lapses should not result in denial of substantive exemption benefits.

Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 18/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 could not be denied on the facts, and the demand was unsustainable.

---