TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 932
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al No. Impugned Order Order-in- Original Period of dispute Rebate claimed (in Rs.) Rebate sanctioned (in Rs.) Amount Rejected (in Rs.) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) 1 ST/41599/2016 O-I-A No. 14 dated 30.05.2016 O-I-O No. LTUC /407& 408/2013 DC (ST-Rebate) dated 31.10.2013 July 2012 to Dec 2012and Apr 2013 to June 2013 Rs.1,03,98,910/- Rs.1,03,98,910/- NIL 2 ST/41600/2016 O-I-A No. 14 dated 30.05.2016 O-I-O No. LTUC /407& 408/2013 DC (ST-Rebate) dated 31.10.2013 Jan 2013 to March 2013 Rs.35,16,388/- Rs.35,16,388/- NIL 3.1 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, the Appellant, in terms of Notification No. 39/2012 ST dated 20.06.2012 filed two rebate claims on 20.05.2013 and 24.07.2013 for rebate / refund of service tax paid on various input services utilized by them in export of services. The claims were verified and found that: - i. The Appellant converted their existing service tax Registration into a centralized one and had included R & D centre, Hyderabad with effect from 08.03.2013 and that the claims included input service invoices received during the period prior to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....account of mere procedural infraction (Non filing of declaration) is contrary to the settled proposition of "Procedural Infraction cannot deny substantive justice". ii. 'Filing of Declaration' is classified under the heading 'Procedure' under Notification No. 39/2012 and therefore non filing of such declaration does not amount to non-compliance of substantive condition. iii. The Conditions and Limitations prescribed in the Para-2 of Notification No. 39/2012 are fulfilled and therefore denial of rebate on grounds alien to conditions stated in Para-2 is illegal and unsustainable. iv. The decisions cited by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) are not relevant to the instant case and are substantially distinguishable from the Appellant's case. v. Prima Facie, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to answer while the declaration itself is under the heading of "Procedure" and while plethora of cases from the Apex court holding that substantial benefit cannot be denied for the procedural infraction, why the submissions of the Appellants were squarely rejected. vi. The appellant rely on the following case laws to substantiate that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alt with and appeals were allowed. 5. Per Contra, the Ld. Authorized Representative Ms. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, representing the Department affirmed the findings in the impugned order and submitted that the rebate claim is sanctionable strictly in terms of provisions of the Notification No. 39/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 which was issued under Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. It is mandatory on the part of the rebate sanctioning authority to verify the correctness of the declaration filed prior to export of service by calling for relevant documents and only after such verification where he is satisfied that there is no likelihood of evasion of duty, he may accept the declaration. Whereas, in these cases, that kind of verification has not been conducted. The requirement of filing the declaration and verification as envisaged in the Notification is a substantive condition and cannot be treated as a mere procedural requirement that can be done away with as these are meant to prevent the misuse of the facility. Non-observance of the procedure prescribed in the Notification would obviously disentitle the appellant from sanction of rebate and therefore the rejection of rebate clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted with the description, quantity, value, rate of duty and the amount of duty payable on inputs actually required to be used in providing service to be exported and the description, value and the amount of service tax and cess payable on input services actually required to be used in providing service to be exported. However, the rebate claims were accompanied by invoices of input services issued under Service Tax Rules, 1994 and that it is condonable placing reliance upon a case Law decided by the Supreme Court. Whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) in Par 5.9 of his impugned order has held that Non-filing of the requisite declaration as mandated in the Notification is a substantive violation and hence cannot be construed and to be condoned as a mere procedural infraction for sanctioning of Rebate. We find that Documentary evidence of receipt of payment against service exported along with input invoices evidencing payment of service tax have been submitted. The Lower Appellate Authority has however found the appellant not being eligible for the rebate holding a view that the rebate sanctioning authority has to verify the correctness of the declaration filed prior to export of servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... call centre or BPO centre are considered exported, as the services are rendered to persons outside the country. Thus every phone call is an export of taxable service. But the bills and invoices in respect of the input-services described in the preceding paragraph would in the normal course be received by the appellant only at regular intervals, say once in a month or fifteen days etc., depending upon the arrangement which it has with those service-providers. Now we have to appreciate that in a call centre where there are hundreds of employees attending to calls from abroad at any given point of time, it is next to impossible to anticipate the date of export and with precision demarcate the point of time prior to the export and also determine the point of time when the export may be said to have been completed. What can be the determining factor? Is each call to be considered as an independent export of taxable services? Is the total number of calls attended to on any particular day to be considered as the export of taxable services? Or is the appellant to reckon the calls on a monthly basis? It needs also to be remembered that there is no way of anticipating any call or the number....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lation providing for export benefits." 13. The Appellant has relied upon the decision of Tribunal Chennai in their own case viz., Mobis India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai [(2024) 24 Centax 311 (Tri.-Mad)] wherein in Para 13, it was held as follows: - "13. In appreciation of the above decisions and also having regard to all the facts in these appeals, we are of the considered view that the Lower Appellate Authority's finding is erroneous in holding the view that non- verification by the rebate sanctioning authority of the declaration filed prior to the export of service would disentitle the appellant to claim rebate of the service taxes paid which were utilized in the export of service declared. There is substantial and full compliance with all the conditions of the Notification and if the Departmental authorities have not conducted any verification on the declaration filed that cannot be used against the appellant. The Government policy has been all along to promote exports. In all these cases, the appellant have not only exported the declared service i.e, Consulting Engineer Service and also clearly specified the nature of input servi....