Order Date – 08 May 2023

Parties: HEG Limited Vs Commissioner (Appeals) GST, Customs and Central Excise,  Bhopal (M.P.)

Facts – 

• The Appellant, HEG Limited, is engaged in manufacture of graphite electrodes, filed four EXP-1s on 02.04.2012 and another one on 03.04.2013 intimating their intention to avail exemption from service tax under Notification No. 18/2009 dated 07.07.2009 in respect of four services namely Banking & Financial services, Goods Transport Agency service, Consulting Engineering service and Business Auxiliary services.
• The Appellant filed EXP-2 as informed by the department. The Department noted that the EXP-2 were not filed timely and in proper format by the Appellant. Therefore, the Appellant had wrongly claimed exemption under Notification 18/2009 - ST dated 07.07.2009 and Notification no. 31/2012 - ST dated 20.06.2012. In this regard, two Show Cause Notices were issued proposing demand of service tax including interest and penalty.
• The Commissioner (Appeals), confirmed demand of service tax of Rs. 54,72,198/- against the Appellant under GTA Service by denying the benefit of the exemption notifications to the Appellant.

Issue –

• Whether the appellant is entitled to exemption on GTA services?

Order –

• The Tribunal observed that there is neither any allegation in the show cause notice nor any finding in the impugned order that the appellant did not export the goods or that there was no consignment note, or any other document in his name. Therefore, the essential condition for availing the benefit of the said exemption notification stands satisfied.
• It was also observed that the appellant was very prompt when seeking the exemption under the said notifications, but did not show similar promptness while filing returns. It is also seen that while filing the returns, the appellant did not take due care to file the data/documents as required, despite having undertaken to file the same. The appellant can be excused once for not having complied with the provisions of the notification for which the Tribunal has allowed the benefit. 
• Hence, it was held that the appellant has complied with the notification condition as enumerated in column 4 of the table. In view of the same, the Tribunal set aside the demand of duty and interest upheld in the impugned order. Consequently, the penalty under section 77 is upheld for failure to file the returns in time.
• Hence the appeal is allowed partly.