2026 (8) TMI 854

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pter 55 of Central Excise Tariff Act; the appellants availed exemption from payment of duty in terms of Notification No.18/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 and Notification No.42/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012; the appellants have engaged commission agents to further their business in overseas locations. During the scrutiny of Returns and records of the appellants, it appeared to the Revenue that for the period 01.10.2012 to 31.03.2013, the appellants did not file EXP-3 and they have violated the provisions of Clause (e) of the Notification No.42/2012 and therefore, the exemption was not available to the appellants; it also appeared in respect of four shipping bills i.e pertaining to Invoice No.1176, 1177, 1186 & 1193, commission was payable and applicab....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at no commission was paid in respect of Invoice Nos.1176, 1177 & 1193 and that in respect of Invoice No.1186 dated 17.01.2023, the Indian Agent i.e M/s Teretex Trading Corporation, Kolkata have paid the duty. He relies on Radiant Textiles Ltd. - 2017 (47) STR 195 (Tri. Chd.) and Praj Industries Ltd. - 17 (3) GSTL 341 (Tri. Mumbai). 4. Ms. Amita Gupta, learned Authorized Representative for the Department reiterates the findings of the impugned order. She relies on Circular No.334/13/2009-TRU dated 06.07.2009 and submits that the conditions are mandatory and non-compliance of the same disentitles the appellant from the benefit of the exemption notification. She relies on the following cases: • Eagle Flask Industries Limit ed 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elied upon by the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue are not applicable as the issue in the impugned case before us is about delayed submission rather than non-submission. Similarly, we find that Revenue could not establish that the appellants have paid commission in respect of the four shipping bills in dispute. 6. We find that the original authority has examined all the relevant facts of the case and has concluded categorically as follows: As such, I find that demand of services tax of Rs.1,25,130/- and Rs. 21,910/-alongwith interest and penalty is not imposable on the noticee as they have fulfill clause (d) and (e) of the exemption notification as discussed above which proves that the noticee has used the servi....