TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 221
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) has rejected the appeal of the Apellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the Appellant were engaged in export of goods; the appellant sold their goods either directly or through commission agent; the payments against export were received through banking channels. Audit of the Appellant was conducted by A.G. Audit and it was observed that the Appellant during the financial years 2007-08 to 2011-12 have paid an amount of Rs.43,78,280/- in foreign currency to various foreign based persons for various services in relation to their activities in India; the services provided by these foreign bases persons are covered by the scope of taxable category of services of 'Business Auxiliary Serv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....goods either directly or through commission agent and have paid the commission through banking channels to overseas agents for rendering services in relation to the goods exported. He further submits that the only issue involved in the present case is whether the Appellant is liable to pay service tax under Section 66A of the Finance Act in respect to the commission paid to overseas agents and to pay service tax in respect of payments made through American Express Card under reverse charge basis. He further submits that the Adjudicating Authority in the Order-in-Original has not disclosed the category of service against which service tax has been demanded under Section 66A for the period 2007-08 to 2011- 12 which comes to Rs.5,15,808/-; the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that substantive benefit cannot be denied on procedural lapse. For this, he relies on the following decisions: * HEG Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax - 2019 (29) GSTL 730 (Tri -Del) * Premier Indus Oxygen & Air Product Vs. CCE - 2004 (174) ELT 243 (Tri - Chennai) * Thermax Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE - 1992 (61) ELT 352 (SC) 4.5 The learned Counsel further submits that the show cause notice has been issued by invoking the extended period of limitation. He further submits that the period involved in the present case is 2007-08 to 2011-12 whereas the show cause notice has been issued on 22.10.2012. He further submits that the Appellant have not su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f exemption Notification No. 18/2009-ST has been denied to the Appellant merely on the basis of delay in filing the EXP-2 returns. We have noted that the Tribunal in the case of HEG Limited (supra) has held that substantial benefit of notification cannot be denied on account of procedural lapse. By following the ratio of the said decision, we hold that the Appellant are entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 18/2009-ST. 7. As regards the invocation of extended period of limitation, we hold that the show cause notice has been issued by invoking the extended period of limitation based on the audit objection and it is a settled law that extended period cannot be invoked on the basis of audit as held in the following cases: ....