Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1110 - CESTAT ALLAHABADBenefit of exemption - services used by the exporters for export of their goods - appellant is availing the commission agent services from the companies located outside India - N/N. 18/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 - benefit of notification denied on the ground that they have paid commission on export of goods procured through the wholly owned subsidiaries - time limitation - Held that:- The interpretation given by the adjudicating authority that the Notification benefit cannot be extended inasmuch as the export orders have been procured through wholly owned subsidiaries are erroneous. It is well-settled law that a Notification has to be read and interpreted on the basis of the words used therein and it is not permissible to ignore or introduce any word in the language of the Notification. On reading the said clause of the condition of the Notification, it is seen that there is no reference therein to the orders procured by the wholly owned subsidiaries, acting as commission agents, from a foreign land. Admittedly in the present case the appellant has not exported the goods to its own wholly owned subsidiaries or overseas joint ventures. The appellant has paid only commission to its foreign based commission agents, who happened to be their own subsidiary company and has not made any exports to them - the legislative intent beyond the introduction of the above condition is that no exporter would take undue advantage of the exemption on overseas commission agents in respect of the exports made by them to their own companies inasmuch as the export to their own companies would not require the services of any commission agents etc. - the benefit of the exemption Notification No.18/2009 is available to the appellant and the demand of Service Tax is unsustainable. Time limitation - Held that:- Apart from that, appellant was also filing the returns in Form EXP-1 and EXP-2 and as such the entire facts were in the knowledge of the Revenue. Apart from that the issue involved is bona fide issue of interpretation, in which case no mala fide can be attributed to the appellant. Further, the Revenue has not produced any evidence to show that there was any suppression or mis-statement on behalf of the appellant with any mala fide intention so as to justifiably invoke the longer period of limitation - demand barred by limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|