2018 (8) TMI 172 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Refund of accumulated Cenvat credit – Export of output services – Rule 5 of the CCR read with the relevant N/N. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.6.2012 – denial of refund on the ground that the documentary evidence for export of services has not been satisfactorily submitted – Held that:- Identical issue decided in the case of MOBILE IRON INDIA SOFTWARE PVT. LTD, HYDERABAD VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER CCE & ST, HYDERABAD-IV [2017 (4) TMI 228 – CESTAT HYDERABAD], where the grounds for rejection of refund was non-production of Softex returns from STPI authorities. The Tribunal has concluded that the insistence to furnish Softex returns from STP authorities is not as per the law laid down in the relevant field.
–
In the present case also, the appellant has claimed to have exported Information Technology Software Service. The fact of export of such software and the receipt of the foreign exchange therefor is sufficiently evidenced from the invoices, the F
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
credit in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with the relevant Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.6.2012. The appellant claimed that they have exported their output service. The claim was supported by the necessary documents, as required under the relevant notification. The claim for refund was rejected by the original authority and the same was also upheld by the impugned order. The main reason for rejection of such refund claim is that the appellant failed to submit documentary evidence for export of services in the form of Softex Forms . The lower authorities have recorded that the submission of Softex Forms duly certified by the Software Technology Park (India) (STPI) Authorities is a requirement in the case of off shore export of services through data communication link, as per the RBI guidelines. Aggrieved by the rejection of their refund claims under Rule 5 of CCR, 2004, the present appeal has been filed. 3. With the above background, heard Shri S. Thiru
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rescribed in the Notification No. 27/2012 as well as Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and is entitled to such refund and the same may be ordered to be paid. 5. The ld. DR justified the impugned order and pointed out that the departmental authorities need to be satisfied with the fact that the services have been exported and the foreign exchange received is towards such exports. Only subject to such satisfaction, the refund under Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004 can be sanctioned. He argued that the original authority has recorded that the appellant has failed to submit documentary evidence for export. For non-fulfilment of Condition (g) of the relevant notification, the refunds have been rightly rejected. The requirement of submission of Softex Forms has been confirmed by the Additional Director STP vide his letter dated 28.12.2016 and hence the lower authorities have rightly rejected the refund claims. 6. Heard both sides at length and perused the record. 7. The refund under Rule 5 of th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
h forms but through this appeal have claimed that the Softex Form is not a requirement for export of services through internet. It has been submitted that the Softex Forms are requirement only in the case of software export in media form. To this effect they have relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mobile Iron India Software Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 9. I have carefully considered the decision of the Tribunal in the case cited by the appellant. In the said case also one of the grounds for rejection of refund was non-production of Softex returns from STPI authorities. The Tribunal has analysed the issue and has observed as follows: 8. The second ground for rejection of the refund is that the appellant has not produced SOFTEX returns from STPI authorities. Again, the said document as per Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods & Services) Regulations, 2015, shows that it relates with export of goods and software and not with regard to export of services. The relevant
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
fter certifying all three copies of the SOFTEX form, the said designated official shall forward the original directly to the nearest office of the Reserve Bank and return the duplicate to the exporter. The triplicate shall be retained by the designated official for record. 9. The above regulations shows that the insistence to furnish SOFTEX returns from STPI authorities is not as per law laid in the relevant field. 10. The Tribunal has concluded as above that the insistence to furnish Softex returns from STP authorities is not as per the law laid down in the relevant field. In the present case also, the appellant has claimed to have exported Information Technology Software Service. The fact of export of such software and the receipt of the foreign exchange therefor is sufficiently evidenced from the invoices, the FIRCs and the Chartered Accountant s certificate certifying the total turnover. 11. In view of the above, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to refund in terms of
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =