Page 222 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

124 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
ity to - Recipient of transfer of technology services from abroad - Non-
fulfilment of substantive condition of notifications viz. (1) payment of Re-
search & Development Cess subsequent to payment of Service Tax and (2)
failure to maintain records so as to establish linkage between invoices of R &
D challans - HELD : Language of Notification unambiguous and clear -
Amendment in earlier Notification No. 18/2002-S.T. reflects upon legislative
intent and makes clear that Service Tax not merely exempted to the extent of
R & D Cess payable but said exemption would be available only if R & D Cess
paid before payment of Service Tax - Expression used in conditions introduced
as paid and not payable, thus leading to inevitable conclusion that R & D Cess
required to be paid before payment of Service Tax - Assessee disentitled to
benefit of impugned Notification. - It is also seen that prior to the said amendment
the Notification No. 18/2002-S.T. simplicitor exempted the taxable services from so much
of Service Tax which was equivalent to the R & D Cess. However with effect from 19-9-
2011, the specific conditions were introduced in the said exemption Notification. As per
the said conditions R & D Cess was required to be paid before payment of Service Tax
only then the Service Tax exemption equivalent to R & D Cess would be available to the
importer. [paras 7, 8, 9, 10]
Demand - Limitation - Extended Period - Invocation of - Adjustment of
R & D Cess before discharging payment of Service Tax in violation of substan-
tive condition of Exemption Notification - Impugned case, not case of any bo-
na fide interpretation inasmuch as wordings of Notifications very clear, re-
quiring recipient to pay R & D Cess before payment of Service Tax so as to
avail exemption - No justifiable reasons provided by assessee for not paying
R & D Cess in time and for availing exemption without such payment of
R & D Cess - Invocation of longer period of limitation, correct - Impugned or-
der upheld - Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. [para 11]
Penalty - Availment of exemption without fulfilling condition of Noti-
fication and without discharging R & D Cess liability - Provisions of Notifica-
tion, contravened thus making assesee liable to penalty - Imposition of penalty
upheld - Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. [para 12]
Interpretation of Statutes - Exemption Notifications - While interpret-
ing taxing statute, importance has to be given to clear expression used therein
and no intent can be examined in case of any unambiguity in wordings of No-
tification - As such intention of Legislature has to be gathered from language
used in Notification. [para 7]
Interpretation of Statutes - Exemption Notifications - When wordings
in statute are clear, plain and unambiguous and only one meaning can be in-
ferred, Court is bound to give effect to said meaning irrespective of conse-
quences - In applying rule of plain meaning, interpretation, any hardship or
inconvenience cannot be basis to alter meaning of language employed by Leg-
islature especially in fiscal statute and penal statute. [para 8]
Interpretation of Statutes - Exemption Notifications - Well-settled law
that any interpretation which renders Notification as futile piece of Legislation
has to be avoided. [para 9]
Exemption - Onus of proof - Well-settled position of law that person
claiming exemption needs to prove that he satisfies all conditions of Notifica-
tion so as to be eligible to benefit of the same. [para 10]
Appeal rejected
GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  286