CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. – I Service Tax Appeal No. 30538 of 2019 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.GUN-EXCUS-000-APP-140-18-19 dated 21.02.2019 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Tax (Appeals), Guntur)

M/s CCL Products (India) Ltd., .. APPELLANT

7-1-24/d, Greendale, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 016.

VERSUS Commissioner of Central Tax .. RESPONDENT Guntur - GST C.R. Buildings, Kannavari Thota, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh – 522 004.

APPEARANCE:

Ms Chamanthi Bhimireddy, Advocate for the Appellant.

Shri B. Sangameshwar Rao, Authorized Representative for the Respondent. CORAM: HON’BLE Mr. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HON’BLE Mr. ANGAD PRASAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER No. A/30262/2026 Date of Hearing: 27.04.2026 Date of Decision: 27.04.2026 [ORDER PER: ANGAD PRASAD]

M/s CCL Products (India) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as appellant)

are in appeal against the demand of Rs. 7,89,568/- with equal penalty, as upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 21.02.2019 (impugned order). The issue involved is whether they are eligible for claiming the exemption Notification No. 31/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 or otherwise.

2. The brief, fact of the case is that they are 100% EOU engaged in the business of manufacturing instant/soluble coffee and also inter alia, exporting the same outside India. The Department issued demand for non-

payment of service tax on the Goods Transport Agent (GTA) service during the period April 2015 to December 2015 on the grounds that the exemption notification claimed by them in their ST-3 returns was not relevant as also the fact that they had not fully complied with the procedure prescribed in terms of Notification No. 31/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012.

3. Learned Advocate for the appellant is mainly contesting that during the material time they are relying on Notification No. 25/2012 dated 20.06.2012 and however the said exemption was withdrawn by Notification No. 06/2015 dated 01.03.2015 with effect from 01.04.2015. Therefore, though the said exemption was not applicable in terms of the product being exported by them, they were still eligible for benefit under Notification No. 31/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 in respect of GTA service for export of coffee. The Department, however, felt that they have not complied with the conditions of notification in as much as they failed to file form EXP-1 and EXP-2 for the period April 2015 to December 2015. Learned Advocate is relying on the judgment of the Co-ordinate bench in the case of M/s Prachi Leathers Pvt Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur [2024 (4) TMI 1313 (CESTAT-ALL)] in respect of that the conditions alleged by the Department of having been not fulfilled where merely procedural in nature and they can be waived as there is no dispute that they have not complied with substantive provisions of the said notification.

4. On the other hand, Learned AR apart from reiterating the findings of the order of the Commissioner also submits it is a notification which must be construed strictly and it is an admitted fact that they have not complied with the conditions of the notification in as much as the condition prescribed at proviso (a) sub-clause (i) and sub-clause (c) of the provisions. In as much as they had not informed the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner before availing the said exemption as also they have not filed EXP-2 return for the period within completion of 15 days as required.

5. Heard both the sides and perused the records.

6. We find that the short question for determination is whether the appellants are eligible for benefit of notification No. 31/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 or otherwise. We find that this notification is in supersession of the Notification No. 18/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009, whereby, certain exemptions have been given in respect of transport of goods, export of goods carried for export of goods. In this case, there is no dispute that the service involved is