IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amendment sought by the appellant in the shipping bills of entry was liable to be allowed since only a declaration was sought by the Appellant that rebate should be granted by refund of service tax paid on the specified services under paragraph 2 of the notification.

JUDGMENT

Dharmesh Sharma, J. - The instant Appeals have been preferred by the Commissioner of Customs, Air-Cargo Export, New Delhi [Appellant] under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 [The Act] assailing the orders dated 24 February 2020 passed by Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [CESTAT], whereby it allowed the amendment of documents filed with the Commissioner of Customs at the time of export of Gold Jewellery and Gold Medallions, purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 149 of the Act. All these appeals raise common questions of law, so are being adjudicated through this common judgment.

2. The exposition of facts leading to the filing of the present appeals is that the respondents filed applications under Section 149 of the Act on 14 March 2017 seeking amendment in their shipping bills filed at the time of export of Gold jewellery and Gold medallions during the period 01 April 2014 to 31 March 2015. It was claimed by Respondents that they are seeking amendment as they had not entered the declaration for claim of Service Tax Rebate [STR] which was required to be made in electronic shipping bill as per paragraph 2 of the Notification No. 41/2012-Service Tax dated 29 June 2012. [Relevant Notification] Accordingly, by way of amendment, they wanted to endorse the said declaration on the said shipping bills so that they could claim STR under the relevant notification. It is an admitted case that the respondents also filed all the relevant documents viz. shipping bills, relevant invoices, airway bills, bank realization certificate, etc. along with their applications for amendment as required vide Section 149 of the Act.

3. The Adjudicating Authority did not allow the amendment application filed by any of the Respondent and dismissed the same vide order dated 01 July 2017 holding that amendment can only be allowed on the basis of documentary evidence, which was in existence at the time of export, but the Respondents have not been able to produce any such documentary evidence. Being aggrieved, the Respondents preferred respective appeals before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) but the same were also rejected by the Commissioner (Appeal) vide order dated 06 June 2019 inter alia holding that the respondents had not produced any documentary evidence about receiving, using receipts of services and tax paid on services and so the requirement of Section 149 of the Act was not met. It was further held that the appellants failed to submit relevant information in the prescribed format with regard to the exports made, and therefore, denied the benefit of Paragraph (2) of the Relevant Notification dated 29 June 2012.

4. However, on the respondents filing second appeals, the learned CESTAT allowed those appeals vide separate orders in each appeal, each dated 24 February 2020 [Impugned Orders], while observing as follows:

"17. The Commissioner (Appeals) completely failed to distinguish the requirements of paragraph 2 of the notification and paragraph 3 of the notification. The documents which the Commissioner (Appeals) sought from the Appellant are in relation to the requirements of paragraph 3 of the notification and in fact even the information sought in the format is a format contemplated in paragraph 3 of the notification. Paragraph 2 of the notification required a declaration to be made in the shipping bills regarding the intention to claim rebate either under paragraph 2 or paragraph 3 of the notification. The appellant had not indicated the said declaration and it is this declaration that was sought to be submitted in the shipping bills through the amendment sought by the Appellant. Neither the Adjudicating Authority nor the Commissioner (Appeals) have mentioned about any requirement of paragraph 2 of the notification not having been met by the Appellant. For applicability of section 149 of the Customs Act relating to amendment of documents, all that has to be seen is that documentary evidence should have been in