Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + CGOVT Service Tax - 2021 (12) TMI CGOVT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 1436 - CGOVT - Service TaxRejection of rebate claim - rejection on the grounds that the Applicants had not filed prior declaration in terms of para 3.1 of the notification dated 20.06.2012 - revision application claims that delay in filing of prior declaration is at best a procedural delay and, accordingly, rebate should not be denied - HELD THAT:- In terms of rule 6A, the rebate of service tax, paid on providing services that are exported shall be allowed subject to such “safeguards, conditions and limitations”, as may be specified. Further, on a plain reading, the provisions of para-3.1 of the notification no. 39/2012-ST relating to filing a prior declaration, i.e., a declaration prior to the date of export of service, read with para- 3.2, are in the nature of Safeguards in as much as filing of the prior declaration enables the department to cause necessary verification, so as to satisfy itself that there is no likelihood of evasion of duty, service tax and cess, as the case may be - In the present case, therefore, by not filing the prior declaration, the Applicant has circumvented the safeguards subject to which the rebate is to be allowed in terms of rule 6A. As the sanction of rebate is subject to observance of the safeguards in para 3.1 and as, in the present case, these safeguards have not been observed, the rebate is not admissible. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of GOVERNMENT OF KERALA & ANR. VERSUS MOTHER SUPERIOR ADORATION CONVENT [2021 (3) TMI 93 - SUPREME COURT], has, after noting the judgment in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. DILIP KUMAR AND COMPANY & ORS. [2018 (7) TMI 1826 - SUPREME COURT], clarified that in case any ambiguity arises in construction of a beneficial exemption, the benefit of such ambiguity should be granted in favour of what is exempted - In the present case, there is no ambiguity whatsoever regarding the provisions of para 3.1. Therefore, the judgment in Mother Superior case is of no assistance to the Applicants herein. The Applicants are clearly in default of the safeguards specified under notification no. 39/2012-ST and have failed to discharge the burden of proving applicability, as required in terms of Dilip Kumar & Company. The revision application is rejected.
|