2025 (7) TMI 633 - AT - Service Tax

EOU exemption under Notification 18/2009-ST partially allowed on remand with opportunity to submit export returns

M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore

M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether failure to file the returns/records specified in Notification No.18/2009-ST (EXP-1 and EXP-2) constitutes non-compliance that disentitles a 100% Export Oriented Unit to exemption for GTA services in relation to transport of goods by road for export. 2. Whether omission to file EXP-1/EXP-2 (procedural lapse and/or delayed filing) can be treated as a mere procedural defect permitting grant of exemption where substantive conditions (export, IEC/registration, inward remittance, consignment notes) are satisfied and there is no revenue prejudice. 3. Whether invoking extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty are sustainable where denial of exemption is based solely on procedural non-compliance and there is no finding of suppression or evasion of duty. 4. Appropriate remedial course where documents/returns required by the Notification are not on record at the time of adjudication but can be produced on opportunity being afforded. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Effect of non-filing of returns/records prescribed by the Notification on entitlement to exemption Legal framework: The exemption under Notification No.18/2009-ST is conditional; entitlement is subject to compliance with the conditions laid down in the Notification, including furnishing prescribed information/returns (EXP-1 and EXP-2) relating to export particulars and receipt of export proceeds. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal relied on prior Tribunal and Supreme Court pronouncements (as cited in the impugned proceedings) addressing the treatment of procedural lapses versus substantive non-compliance when determining benefit of notifications and revenue neutrality principles. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court analyzed the nature of the information required by EXP-1/EXP-2 and found that these returns essentially record export particulars and receipt of export proceeds - matters of proof of substantive conditions already admitted to be satisfied by the appellant (100% EOU status, export performance, registration/IEC, consignment notes). The Tribunal treated the omission to file such returns as a procedural lapse rather than a substantive breach going to the root of the Notification's condition, where the required details are otherwise available in departmental records. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where substantive conditions for exemption are otherwise met and the information required by prescribed returns exists in departmental records or can be produced, mere omission to file those returns does not automatically disentitle a claimant to the exemption. Obiter - general guidance on strict versus liberal construction of beneficial fiscal notifications when procedural non-compliance occurs. Conclusions: Non-filing of EXP-1/EXP-2, in the absence of suppression or evasion and where substantive conditions are satisfied and requisite details exist, is a procedural lapse which should not per se deny exemption under the Notification. Issue 2 - Whether delayed filing of returns can be condoned where no prejudice to revenue Legal framework: Fiscal notifications and statutory schemes permit documentary compliance; however, principles of beneficial legislation and revenue neutrality inform whether procedural defaults should cause forfeiture of benefits. Cenvat credit/ refund mechanisms and admissibility of credit for service tax paid are relevant to assess revenue impact. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal referenced authorities holding that beneficial legislation should not be construed strictly to defeat intended relief and that where non-compliance is procedural and revenue is not prejudiced (including instances where cenvat credit/refund renders the outcome revenue neutral), relief may be afforded. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal considered that delayed filing of EXP-2 had been regularized (returns submitted) and that the appellant could substantiate export and receipt of proceeds. It noted that where the revenue is not prejudiced - for example, where cenvat credit is available or refund would make the position revenue neutral - strict forfeiture is unwarranted. The Tribunal also considered that the adjudicating authority had not demonstrated any prejudicial consequence to revenue arising from delay. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - lapse in procedural filing that is subsequently remedied and that causes no revenue prejudice can be condoned when assessing entitlement to exemption. Obiter - commentary on interplay between cenvat/refund mechanisms and the assessment of prejudice. Conclusions: Delayed filing of EXP-2, where subsequently complied with and where no prejudice to revenue is shown (including revenue neutrality via cenvat/refund), does not justify denial of exemption. Issue 3 - Invocation of extended period of limitation and imposition of penalty where denial is based solely on procedural non-compliance Legal framework: Extended limitation periods and penalties under the relevant law require satisfaction of statutory tests - typically, existence of suppression, fraud, or willful misstatement/evasion. Mere procedural lapses without culpable conduct or suppression generally do not permit invocation of extended limitation or penal consequences. Precedent Treatment: The Court relied on authorities affirming that extended limitation and penalties are not sustainable absent a finding of suppression or evasion; beneficial fiscal provisions and procedural irregularities must be distinguished from dishonest concealment. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority invoked extended limitation and imposed penalty without recording any justification of suppression or evasion. Since the denial of benefit was based only on non-filing of returns (procedural lapse) and the department already had the necessary export/inward remittance details, the prerequisites for extended limitation and penalty were absent. Therefore, the extended period invocation and penalty imposition were unsustainable. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - extended limitation periods and penalties cannot be applied where the adjudicating authority fails to establish suppression, fraud, or evasion; procedural non-compliance alone does not satisfy the statutory threshold. Obiter - observations on the need for adjudicators to record reasons when alleging concealment to invoke extended periods. Conclusions: Invocation of extended limitation and imposition of penalty in the present facts is unsustainable and must be set aside where no suppression or evasion is established. Issue 4 - Appropriate remedy where prescribed documentation is absent but can be produced Legal framework: Principles of natural justice and remedial discretion permit remand or opportunity to produce documents required for claiming conditional exemptions; adjudicating authorities may consider belated production within the normal period if the facts warrant. Precedent Treatment: The Tribunal relied on prior decisions treating beneficial notifications liberally where procedural compliance can be achieved by permitting production of documents and where no prejudice to revenue is shown. Interpretation and reasoning: Given that the required details (export particulars and receipt of proceeds) were stated to be held by the appellant and could be produced, and that there was no finding of suppression, the Tribunal directed remand for the adjudicating authority to grant a six-week opportunity to produce the documents. The adjudicating authority is to treat such production as if filed within the normal period and, if satisfied, extend benefit of the Notification; failure to comply permits confirmation of demand for the normal period. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where requisite documents are available and there is no culpability, the proper remedy is to allow an opportunity to furnish the documents and treat them as timely for the purposes of grant of exemption; remand for this purpose is appropriate. Obiter - procedural guidance on timelines and consequences on remand. Conclusions: The correct course is to remit the matter to the adjudicating authority to afford a limited opportunity (six weeks) to produce the prescribed documents; if satisfied, the authority must grant the exemption treating the documents as filed in time; otherwise it may confirm demand for the normal period. Cross-references and Final Observations 1. Issues 1 and 2 are interrelated: the determination whether procedural non-compliance defeats entitlement depends on whether substantive conditions are satisfied and whether non-filing causes revenue prejudice (see Issues 1 and 2 above). 2. Issue 3 follows from Issues 1 and 2: extended limitation and penalty require specific findings of suppression/evasion which were absent; therefore extended period and penalty cannot stand where denial arises solely from procedural lapse (see Issues 1-3). 3. Issue 4 provides the remedial mechanism consistent with the Tribunal's approach to beneficial notifications and natural justice: afford an opportunity to cure procedural default where documents exist and no prejudice is shown; remand and consideration on production is the appropriate remedy.