Procedural delay in filing exemption forms cannot defeat service tax exemption when substantive conditions are otherwise met.

Delayed filing of EXP-2/EXP-4 forms beyond the prescribed time did not justify denial of service tax exemption where the assessee had otherwise satisfied the substantive conditions of Notification No. 18/2009-ST and Notification No. 42/2012-ST. The filing requirement was treated as procedural, and the settled principle applied was that substantive exemption cannot be refused for a mere procedural lapse, especially where the delay was short, arose from non-availability of shipping bills due to customs delay, and showed no mala fide intent. The exemption was therefore upheld and the demand set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether delayed filing of EXP-2/EXP-4 beyond the prescribed time limit, when all other conditions of the exemption notifications were complied with, justified denial of exemption from service tax.

Analysis: The appellant had complied with the substantive requirements of Notification No. 18/2009-ST and Notification No. 42/2012-ST, and the only objection was delay in filing the prescribed return/forms. The delay arose from non-availability of shipping bills on account of delay at the customs end. The conditions relating to filing of the forms were treated as procedural in nature, and the settled principle applied was that substantive exemption cannot be denied for a mere procedural lapse, particularly when there was no mala fide intent and the delay was short.

Conclusion: The procedural delay did not justify denial of the exemption. The appellant was held entitled to the benefit of the notifications, and the demand was set aside.

---