TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orth-I, Gurugram. 2. Briefly stated, the Applicants herein were registered, under Service Tax, for providing various taxable services. They filed two rebate claims, amounting to Rs. 17,44,328/-, (for January to March, 2017) and Rs. 9,60,649/-, (for April to June, 2017), in terms of rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 read with notification no. 39/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. The rebate claims were rejected by the original authority, vide the aforesaid Order-in-Original dated 06.10.2020, on the grounds that the Applicants had not filed prior declaration in terms of para 3.1 of the notification dated 20.06.2012. The appeal filed by the Applicants herein has been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice tax or duty paid on input services or inputs, as the case may be, used in providing such services and the rebate shall be allowed subject to such safeguards, conditions and limitations, as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification. Notification No. 39/2012-ST: 3.1 Filing of Declaration.- The provider of service to be exported shall, prior to date of export of service, file a declaration with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, specifying the service intended to be exported with, - (a) description, quantity, value, rate of duty and the amount of duty payable on inputs actually required to be used in providing servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mvented 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. 5.2 To put it differently, the provisions of para 3.1, read with those of para 3.2 are not merely in the nature of procedure but these are in the substantive nature of safeguards . As such, the contention of the Applicant herein that the subject case is merely a case of procedural infraction is also not tenable. 5.3. The Applicants have heavily relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Wipro Limited (supra) in support of their case. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equirement of paragraph 3 of the Notification No. 12/2005-ST dated 19.04.2005 is merely procedural and hence directory or is substantive and hence mandatory. It is also to be noted that the nature of service rendered in Wipro Limited (supra) was that of a Call Centre whereas, in the present case, the Applicants have supplied a host of business process management services, including finance and accounting, collections, insurance, customer fulfillment, data modelling and analysis support, managed IT services and software services. Unlike the Call Center services, most of the services rendered by the Applicants herein are not of a nature which are rendered instantly. Therefore, this is also not a case where the requirements of para 3.1 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovision, and construe the statue in accord with such object. And on the assumption that if any ambiguity arises in such construction, such ambiguity must be in favour of that which is exempted. Therefore, the Hon ble Supreme Court, in Mother Superior case, has, after noting the judgment in Dilip Kumar Company, 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 notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
