Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Mobis India Limited vs Ltu Chennai on 2 August, 2024
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT No. III
Service Tax Appeal Nos. 41596-41598 of 2016
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos. 15,16&17/2016 dated 30.05.2016 passed by
Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Large Taxpayer Unit, No. 1775, J.N.
Road, Anna Nagar (w) Extn., Chennai - 600 101)
And
Service Tax Appeal Nos. 42325-42326 of 2016
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos. 102&103/2016 dated 30.09.2016 passed by
Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Large Taxpayer Unit, No. 1775, J.N.
Road, Anna Nagar (w) Extn., Chennai - 600 101)
M/s. Mobis India Limited ...Appellant
Plot No. G-1, SIPCOT Industrial Park,
Irrungatukotai,
Kancheepuram - 602 105.
Versus
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise ...Respondent
Chennai LTU Commissionerate,
Large Taxpayer Unit,
No. 1775, J.N. Road,
Anna Nagar (W) Extn.,
Chennai - 600 101.
APPEARANCE:
For the Appellant : Shri Senguttuvan K., Advocate
For the Respondent : Shri M. Ambe, Authorised Representative
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
FINAL ORDER Nos. 41026-41030 / 2024
DATE OF HEARING : 09.07.2024
DATE OF DECISION: 02.08.2024
Order :- Per Mr. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO
M/s. Mobis India Ltd., Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram (the
appellant herein) have filed all these five appeals assailing the Orders-in-
Appeal Nos. 15,16&17/2016 dated 30.05.2016 and Orders-in-Appeal Nos.
2
102&103/2016 dated 30.09.2016 both passed by the Commissioner of
Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals), Chennai allowing the appeals in
favour of the Department against sanctioning the rebate claims by the
Original Authority in respect of Order-in-Appeal dated 30.05.2016 and for
rejecting the appellant's appeal where the Original Authority rejected part of
the refund claims filed. As all these appeals involve an identical issue of
eligibility of rebate, these are being taken up together for disposal by
issuance of this common order.
2. The following table gives the details of rebate claims filed, the
orders of the Original Authority, the impugned orders and the amount
involved, period of dispute, etc.:-
S.No. Appeal No. Impugned Order-in- Period of Rebate Rebate Amount
Order Original dispute claimed sanctioned Rejected
(in Rs.) (in Rs.) (in Rs.)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
1 ST/41596/2016 O-I-A No. O-I-O No. October Rs.20,21,575/- Rs.20,12,097/- Rs.9,478/-
15 dated LTUC/145/2014 2013
30.05.2016 DC (ST-Rebate)
dated 02.06.2014
2 ST/41597/2016 O-I-A No. O-I-O No. November Rs.17,72,019/- Rs.17,60,994/- Rs.10,974/-
16 dated LTUC/146/2014 2013
30.05.2016 DC (ST-Rebate)
dated 02.06.2014
3 ST/41598/2016 O-I-A No. O-I-O No. December Rs.37,33,831/- Rs.37,30,541/- Rs.3,290/-
17 dated LTUC/151/2014 2013
30.05.2016 DC (ST-Rebate)
dated 04.06.2014
4 ST/42325/2016 O-I-A No. O-I-O No. Jan 2014 Rs.1,23,56,497/- Rs.80,30,438/- Rs.43,26,059/-
102 dated LTUC/20/2015 to May
30.09.2016 AC (ST-Rebate) 2014
dated 21.01.2015
5 ST/42326/2016 O-I-A No. O-I-O No. June Rs.30,91,537/- Rs.20,44,321/- Rs.10,47,216/-
103 dated LTUC/206/2015 2014 and
30.09.2016 AC (ST-Rebate) July 2014
dated 28.05.2015
3.1 Briefly stated the facts of these appeals are that the appellant is
engaged in providing Consulting Engineer Services, Manpower Recruitment /
Supply Agency Services, Banking and other Auxiliary Service, Intellectual
3
Property Right Services, Transport of Goods by Road Services and Legal
Consultancy Services. As well, the appellants are engaged in export of
services from their R&D centre at Hyderabad for which they utilise various
input services and so had filed above rebate claims for refund of service tax
paid on the input services utilised for export of services. These rebate
claims were filed by the appellant in terms of Notification No. 39/2012-ST
dated 20.06.2012 which was issued under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules,
1994. After the due process of law, the Original Authority has sanctioned
the rebate amounts as mentioned in column 7 of the above table and
rejected the balance amounts for the reason that the said amounts were not
declared by the appellant as was required of them and that certain invoices
were dated prior to the period of claim and that certain services were not
classified as 'Consulting Engineer Service'.
3.2 However, the Department was of the view that though the
appellant have filed declarations prior to the date of export of service as
prescribed under Notification No. 39/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, that certain
services were not declared and in some cases though the services were
declared, the service tax amount claimed as rebate was much higher than
the actual amount declared and there was no finding by the rebate
sanctioning authority as to whether the declaration filed before the export of
services was subjected to any verification with regard to its correctness. As
such, the issue involved in all these appeals is relating to interpretation of
the Notification No. 39/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 which is reproduced
below for the sake of ease of reference:-
4
"Exports - Rebate for duty paid on excisable inputs, cess and Service Tax
paid on taxable input services used in services exported to any country
other than Nepal and Bhutan
In exercise of the powers conferred by rule 6A of the Service Tax
Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules), the Central
Government hereby directs that there shall be granted rebate of the whole
of the duty paid on excisable inputs or the whole of the service tax and
cess paid on all input services (herein after referred to as 'input services'),
used in providing service exported in terms of rule 6A of the said rules, to
any country other than Nepal and Bhutan, subject to the conditions,
limitations and procedures specified hereinafter,-
2. Conditions and limitations:-
(a) that the service has been exported in terms of rule 6A of the
said rules;
(b) that the duty on the inputs, rebate of which has been claimed,
has been paid to the supplier;
(c) that the service tax and cess, rebate of which has been claimed,
have been paid on the input services to the provider of service;
Provided if the person is himself is liable to pay for any input
services; he should have paid the service tax and cess to the
Central Government.
(d) the total amount of rebate of duty, service tax and cess
admissible is not less than one thousand rupees;
(e) no CENVAT credit has been availed of on inputs and input
services on which rebate has been claimed; and
(f) that in case,-
(i) the duty or, as the case may be, service tax and cess, rebate
of which has been claimed, has not been paid; or
(ii) the service, rebate for which has been claimed, has not been
exported; or
(iii) CENVAT credit has been availed on inputs and input services
on which rebate has been claimed, the rebate paid, if any, shall
be recoverable with interest in accordance with the provisions of
section 73 and section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994)
3. Procedure.
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 service to
be exported;
5
(b) description, value and the amount of service tax and cess payable
on input services actually required to be used in providing service to
be exported.
3.2 Verification of declaration.- The Assistant Commissioner of Central
Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may
be, shall verify the correctness of the declaration filed prior to such
export of service, if necessary, by calling for any relevant information
or samples of inputs and if after such verification, the Assistant
Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of
Central Excise is satisfied that there is no likelihood of evasion of duty,
or as the case may be, service tax and cess, he may accept the
declaration.
3.3 Procurement of input materials and receipt of input services.- .....
...
...
...
(i) the Secondary and Higher Education Cess on excisable goods liveable under Section 136 read with Section 138 of the Finance Act, 2007 (22 of 2007).
3.3 It is noted that the Department has filed appeals in respect of Appeals Nos. 4,5&6/2014(D) dated 26.09.2014 before the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals) being aggrieved against sanctioning of rebate claims on the grounds that the amount claimed as rebate was in excess when compared to the declaration filed in terms of Notification No. 39/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012, rebate amounts sanctioned included the invoices of certain services which were not included in the declaration filed, in some cases, though the nature of service was declared, the service tax amount claimed as rebate was much higher than the amount declared and that there is no finding as to whether the rebate sanctioning authority has verified the declaration filed as to its correctness in terms of paragraph 3.2 of the Notification No. 39/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.
63.4 The Lower Appellate Authority vide his Order-in-Appeal Nos. 15,16&17/2016 dated 30.05.2016, allowed the Department's Appeals holding that there exists a clear statutory pre-requisite of verification which effectuates the object and purpose of the statute before sanctioning of rebate, that these procedures are not simple formalities but are vital in rebate sanctioning and the appellant had not adduced concrete reasons or any coherent evidence for giving wrong details at the time of filing of declaration as mandated in the Notification. Since Notification categorically authorizes AC/DC to verify the correctness of declaration filed prior to such export of service, foregoing 'verification' exercise by AC/DC before processing the rebate claims is not according to the law. The requirement of filing declaration and verification thereon as envisaged in the Notification is a substantive condition and cannot be treated as a mere procedural requirement that can be done away with since they are meant to prevent the misuse of this facility. The appellant being aggrieved have approached this forum assailing the above order of Lower Appellate Authority. 3.5 Whereas, in respect of Appeal Nos. ST/42325-42326/2016, the appellant has initially filed the appeals before the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals) for rejecting an amount of Rs.43,26,509/-, in respect of their rebate claim field for the period January 2014 to May 2014 and an amount of Rs.10,47,216/-, in respect of rebate claim filed for June 2014 to July 2014. The rebate sanctioning authority has rejected these amounts for the reasons that the said amounts were not initially declared by the appellant as was required of them and certain invoices were dated prior to the period of claim and certain services were not classified as Consulting 7 Engineer Service. Even in these two rebate claims, the Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals), Chennai has rejected the appeals filed, holding that as the procedure laid down in the Notification is not a simple formality but is vital in rebate sanctioning, that the appellant had not adduced any reasons or any coherent evidence for having given wrong details, at the time of filing of declaration as mandated in the Notification. Since the Notification categorically authorizes AC/DC to verify the correctness of declaration filed, prior to such export of service, foregoing 'verification' by AC/DC before processing the rebate claims was held to be not according to the law. The Lower Appellate Authority has further held that requirement of filing declaration and verification thereon as envisaged in the Notification is a substantive condition and cannot be treated as a mere procedural requirement that can be done away with since they are meant to prevent the misuse of this facility. As these are not mere procedural / technical formalities, non-observance of the same would obviously disentitle the appellant from sanction of rebate, he has upheld the rejection of rebate sustained. In support of his contention, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has relied on the decisions in the cases as mentioned below:-
i. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi Vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal [2010 (260) EKT 3 (SC)] ii. Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. Vs. Thane Municipal Corporation [1991 (55) ELT 454 (SC)] iii. India Sugars & Refineries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others [1983 ELT 209 (Kar.)] iv. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi Vs. Avis Electronics Pvt.
Ltd. [2000 (117) ELT 571 (Tri.-LB)] v. TISCO Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras [2000 (118) ELT 104 (Tri. LB)] 3.6 In the above case laws, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that non-observance of even a procedural condition not to be 8 condoned if likely to facilitate commission of fraud and introduce administrative inconveniences. In respect of interpretation of a Notification, it has been held that if an expression in Notification is used in plain and meaningful language there is no scope for assuming an ambiguity and trying to interpret it on a supposed intention of the makers of the Notification and the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) has held that when a particular thing is directed to be performed in a manner prescribed by Rules, it should be performed in that manner and not otherwise.
4. The Ld. Advocate Shri K. Senguttuvan representing the appellant has argued that they had fulfilled all the conditions as in paragraph 2 of the Notification as they had submitted the declaration prior to export as required under the procedure in paragraph 3 of the Notification and that it is an established law that once substantial conditions are fulfilled the procedural or technical infractions have to be ignored. He has submitted that there are various case laws by various appellate fora holding that procedural conditions of technical nature can be condoned so that substantive benefit is not denied for mere procedural lapses. He has further submitted that the requirement of filing declaration with exact quantity of input and output services in the case of export of service is impossible to perform and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Wipro Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2013 (29) STR 545 (Del.)] has held that any condition imposed by the Notification must be capable of being complied with and if it is impossible of compliance, then there is no purpose behind it. It is informed that the above decision has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Ld. Advocated has 9 adverted to the decision of the Tribunal Delhi in Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Convergys India Private Ltd. [2009 (16) STR 198 (Del.)] wherein it was held that the document based verification can be carried out at a latter point of time and non-observance of a procedural condition which is of a technical nature cannot be used to deny the substantive concession. Further, in respect of exports, a liberal view requires to be taken and non- fulfilment of the procedure cannot lead to the denial of the benefits under the beneficial legislation providing for export incentives. This decision has been affirmed by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court reported in [2010 (20) STR 166 (P&H)].
5. The Ld. Authorised Representative Shri M. Ambe representing the Revenue has supported the findings of the Lower Appellate Authority. He has submitted that the rebate claim is sanctionable strictly in terms of provisions of the Notification No. 39/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 which was issued under Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994. It is mandatory on the part of the rebate sanctioning authority to verify the correctness of the declaration filed prior to export of service by calling for relevant documents and only after such verification where he is satisfied that there is no likelihood of evasion of duty, he may accept the declaration. Whereas, in these cases, that kind of verification has not been conducted and also there were no discrepancies pointed out relating to computation of the rebate claim as certain input invoices were considered where the service was not declared and also where the services were declared, the amounts of input tax credit claimed substantially differed with the declaration. The requirement of filing the declaration and verification as envisaged in the 10 Notification is a substantive condition and cannot be treated as a mere procedural requirement that can be done away with as these are meant to prevent the misuse of the facility. Non-observance of the procedure prescribed in the Notification would obviously disentitle the appellant from sanction of rebate and therefore the rejection of rebate claims on these grounds would sustain and prayed for rejection of the appeals.
6. Heard both sides and considered the evidences and other documents as available in the appeal records.
7. The main issue that is to be decided in these appeals is whether the rebate claims filed are sanctionable and whether there is substantial compliance in terms of Notification No. 39/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 for exporting Consulting Engineer Services.
8. The appellant has availed the input service credit utilised for export of Consulting Engineer Service under Notification No. 39/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. A perusal of the procedure specified in the above Notification reveals the following conditions to be satisfied: -
i. The service should have been exported in terms of Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, ii. The duty on the inputs / service tax on the input services should have been paid by the claimant, iii. The total amount of rebate of duty, service tax and cess admissible should not be less than one thousand rupees and, 11 iv. CENVAT credit should not have been availed on the inputs and input services on which rebate is claimed.
9. A perusal of the rebate sanctioning order of the Original Authority indicates that the appellant has furnished a self-attested copy of invoice raised on M/s. Hyundai Mobis Co. Ltd., Seoul, Korea and has also furnished self-attested copy of Certificate of Foreign Inward Remittance. The appellant has filed the invoices issued by the service providers as evidences of payment of service tax and cess on the services utilised by them towards providing the above service exported and they have also declared that they have not availed CENVAT credit of the service tax claimed as rebate and it is specifically recorded by the rebate sanctioning authority that the appellant has fulfilled the conditions imposed by the Notification. It was also mentioned therein that the appellant has filed the declaration before export of service intimating the service intended to be exported with the description, quantity, value, rate of duty and the amount of duty payable on inputs actually required to be used in providing service to be exported and the description, value and the amount of service tax and cess payable on input services actually required to be used in providing service to be exported and the rebate claims were accompanied by invoices of input services issued under Service Tax Rules, 1994. Documentary evidence of receipt of payment against service exported along with input invoices evidencing payment of service tax have been submitted. The Lower Appellate Authority has found the appellant not being eligible for the rebate holding a view that the rebate sanctioning authority has to verify the correctness of the declaration filed prior to export of service and by 12 foregoing such verification by the Original Authority before processing the rebate claim is held to be not in accordance with the law. He has held that the requirement of filing declaration and verification as envisaged in Notification is a substantive condition and cannot be treated as a mere procedural requirement and non-observance of this requirements would disentitle the appellant from sanction of the rebate.
10. The procedure prescribed as extracted below, of the Notification No. 39/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 and its compliance by the appellant is the core of a dispute in these appeals.
"3. Procedure.
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 service to be exported;
(b) description, value and the amount of service tax and cess payable on input services actually required to be used in providing service to be exported.
3.2 Verification of declaration.- The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, shall verify the correctness of the declaration filed prior to such export of service, if necessary, by calling for any relevant information or samples of inputs and if after such verification, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise is satisfied that there is no likelihood of evasion of duty, or as the case may be, service tax and cess, he may accept the declaration."
13
11. The Ld. Counsel has mainly submitted that rebate is a substantial benefit towards export of service as exporters contribute to the nation in many ways which includes generation of the Foreign Exchange and substantial benefit cannot be denied citing procedural lapses. He has argued that the 'procedure' is not mandatory and in all these rebate claims, the appellant has filed declaration before the export of service before the concerned authorities and as such they are eligible for the rebate sanction. We have considered the appellant's reliance on the ratio of the decision in the case of Wipro Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2013 (29) STR 545 (Del.)] wherein it was held that the condition imposed by Notification must be capable of being complied with and if it is impossible of compliance, then there is no purpose behind it, which reads as under: -
"10. We are of the view that there is a good deal of force in what the appellant says. Any condition imposed by the notification must be capable of being complied with. If it is impossible of compliance, then there is no purpose behind it. The appellant is in the business of rendering IT-enabled services such as technical support services, customer-care services, back-office services etc. which are considered to be "business auxiliary services" under the Finance Act, 1994 for the purpose of levy of service tax. The nature of the services is such that they are rendered on a continuous basis without any commencement or terminal points; it is a seamless service. It involves attending to cross-border telephone calls relating to a variety of queries from existing or prospective customers in respect of the products or services of multinational corporations. The appellant's unit in Okhla is one of those places which are popularly known as "Call-Centres" - business process outsourcing (BPO) centres. The wealth of skilled, English-speaking, computer-savvy youth in our country are a great source of manpower required by the multinational corporations for such services. The BPO centres become very active from evening because of the time-difference between India and the European and American continents. The mainstay of the call centres is a sophisticated computer system and a technically strong and sophisticated international telephone network. The service consists of providing information relating to the products and services of the MNCs, queries relating to maintenance and after-sales services, providing telephonic assistance in case of glitches during operating the consumer-products or while utilising the services and so on. For instance, the customer sitting in USA has a problem operating a washing machine sold to him by an American company. When he calls the company, the local telephone number would be linked to the call centre number in India and it will actually be an employee of the Indian call centre who would answer the queries and assist the customer in USA get over the problem. Another example could be of a person in USA wanting to book an international air-
ticket from an airline; his queries over the phone will be answered by the employee of the Indian call centre, sitting in some place in India. The 14 American manufacturer of the washing machine or the American airline company is the source of revenue for the Indian call centre or BPO centre.
11. Apart from the telephone and computer network, every call centre requires an employee-strength to attend to the calls. First they have to be recruited and then they have to be trained in following and speaking in different accents peculiar to different countries. This involves costs of recruitment and training. Once recruited, the staff has to be brought to the call centres. This involves costs on transportation and since most of the work, as stated earlier, is performed from late evening to the early hours in the next morning, the transportation of the staff is at night and that is the reason why the appellant calls it "night transportation services". When remittances are received from the client-corporations abroad through banks, there are bank charges. All these costs when charged to the appellant also involve service tax payment as additional costs. It is the service tax/cess paid by the appellant on such costs that qualify for the rebate under Rule 5 of the Export of Services Rules, 2005.
12. The services rendered by the appellant in its call centre or BPO centre are considered exported, as the services are rendered to persons outside the country. Thus every phone call is an export of taxable service. But the bills and invoices in respect of the input-services described in the preceding paragraph would in the normal course be received by the appellant only at regular intervals, say once in a month or fifteen days etc., depending upon the arrangement which it has with those service-providers. Now we have to appreciate that in a call centre where there are hundreds of employees attending to calls from abroad at any given point of time, it is next to impossible to anticipate the date of export and with precision demarcate the point of time prior to the export and also determine the point of time when the export may be said to have been completed. What can be the determining factor? Is each call to be considered as an independent export of taxable services? Is the total number of calls attended to on any particular day to be considered as the export of taxable services? Or is the appellant to reckon the calls on a monthly basis? It needs also to be remembered that there is no way of anticipating any call or the number of calls the call centre would be required to attend on a single day, so that the appellant can comply with the requirement of filing a declaration "prior" to the date of export of taxable service. The very bedrock of the business is the attending of calls and given that they are received on a continuous basis, we find it difficult to conceive of any possibility as to how the appellant could not only determine the date of export but also anticipate the call so that the declaration could be filed "prior" to the date of export. In addition to this practically impossible situation, the appellant is also required by the procedure laid out in paragraph 3 of the notification to describe value and specify the amount of service tax and cess payable on input services actually required to be used in providing taxable service to be exported. With the possible exception of the description, we are unable to appreciate how the service-exporter will be in a position to value and specify the amount of service tax/cess payable on the input services actually required to be used in providing the exported service. An estimate is ruled out by the use of the word "actually required"; and unless what was actually required is known, it is impossible to value and specify the amount of service tax or cess payable on the input services. That will be known only when the bill or invoice for the input-services is received by the appellant. The bill or invoice is received after the calls are attended to. Thus, it seems to us that in the very nature of things, and considering the peculiar features of the appellant's business, it is difficult to comply with the requirement "prior" to the date of the export."
15
12. We also considered the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal New Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Convergys India Private Ltd. [2009 (16) STR 198 (Del.)] wherein it was held as follows: -
"8.3 The document based verification can be at a latter point of time. In this case, we are concerned only about rebate of credit on input services. The non- observance of a procedural condition in this case is of a technical nature and cannot be used to deny the substantive concession. Further, in respect of export, a liberal view requires to be taken. The non-fulfilment of the procedure cannot lead to denial of the benefit under the beneficial legislation providing for export benefits."
13. In appreciation of the above decisions and also having regard to all the facts in these appeals, we are of the considered view that the Lower Appellate Authority's finding is erroneous in holding the view that non- verification by the rebate sanctioning authority of the declaration filed prior to the export of service would disentitle the appellant to claim rebate of the service taxes paid which were utilized in the export of service declared. There is substantial and full compliance with all the conditions of the Notification and if the Departmental authorities have not conducted any verification on the declaration filed that cannot be used against the appellant. The Government policy has been all along to promote exports. In all these cases, the appellant have not only exported the declared service i.e, Consulting Engineer Service and also clearly specified the nature of input services which are going to be used for such export of services. Even, in respect of ST/42325-42326/2016, non-sanction of rebate claim for the reason that the appellant failed to initially declare the correct amounts in respect of certain input services and that some invoices were dated prior to the date of filing declaration and certain services were not classified as a Consulting Engineer Service cannot be supported. Any valid objection can 16 be raised only when input services have not been utilised in export of service declared. As such, we hold that the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), LTU, Chennai dated 30.05.2016 dated 30.09.2016 cannot be sustained and ordered to be set aside.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and appreciating the ratio of decisions in the cases of Wipro Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2013 (29) STR 545 (Del.)] and Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Convergys India Private Ltd. [2009 (16) STR 198 (Del.)], the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per the law.
(Order pronounced in open court on 02.08.2024)
Sd/- Sd/-
(VASA SESHAGIRI RAO) (SULEKHA BEEVI C.S.)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
MK