{"id":13000,"date":"2018-07-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2018-07-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2018-07-18T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2018-07-17T18:30:00","slug":"m-s-wm-logistics-india-pvt-ltd-versus-cgst-ce-indore","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/?p=13000","title":{"rendered":"M\/s WM Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST &#038; CE, Indore"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>M\/s WM Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST &#038; CE, Indore<br \/>Service Tax<br \/>2018 (8) TMI 172 &#8211; CESTAT NEW DELHI &#8211; TMI<br \/>CESTAT NEW DELHI &#8211; AT<br \/>Dated:- 18-7-2018<br \/>Appeal No. ST\/51431\/2018-SM with ST\/Misc. \/50641\/2018 &#8211; Final Order No. 52609\/2018<br \/>Service Tax<br \/>Hon&#39;ble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member ( Technical )<br \/>\nShri S. Thirumalai, Consultant &#8211; for the appellant<br \/>\nShri K. Poddar, D.R. &#8211; for the respondent<br \/>\nORDER<br \/>\nPer V. Padmanabhan<br \/>\nThe present appeal challenges the Order-in-Appeal No. 402\/2017-18 dated 12.12.2017.<br \/>\n2. The appellant is a 100% subsidiary of WM Logistics LLC, USA. As per the agreement with their parent company, they provided product development support services for collection and disposal activities of WML, USA. The appellant was registered for providing taxable services including &#39;Information Technology Software Service&#39;. The dispute pertains to the claim for refund filed by the appellant for the period April, 2015 to September 2015, for refund of accumulated Cenvat <\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong><BR>For full text:-<a href=\"https:\/\/www.taxtmi.com\/caselaws?id=364700\">Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n<p>rumalai, ld. Advocate. Revenue was represented by Shri K. Poddar.<br \/>\n4. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant is summarised below:<br \/>\n (1) The ld. Advocate submitted that the only reason given by the authorities below for rejection of the refund claim is the appellant&#39;s inability to submit the Softex Forms. He emphasized the fact that all other supporting documents in the form of invoices issued to WML, foreign inward remittance certificate issued by the banks as well as the Chartered Accountant&#39;s certificate certifying the export turnover have been duly submitted and the authorities below have not recorded anything against these documents.<br \/>\n (2) He submitted that the requirement of submission of Softex Forms is not applicable for the export of software undertaken by the appellant as has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Mobile Iron India Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad &#8211; 2017 (3) CGST 518 (Tri.-Hyd.).<br \/>\n (3) He submitted that the appellant is satisfying all the con<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong><BR>For full text:-<a href=\"https:\/\/www.taxtmi.com\/caselaws?id=364700\">Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n<p>Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004 may be granted by the departmental authorities subject to fulfilment of the conditions and safeguards prescribed in the Notification No. 27\/2012-CE(NT). The conditions and safeguards have been prescribed to ensure that the services have been duly exported and payment for the same has been received in foreign exchange. Documentary evidences as prescribed under notification are required to be submitted to satisfy the requirements.<br \/>\n8. In respect of the refund claims filed by the appellant for the quarter April 2015 to September 2015, the only objection recorded by the lower authorities is that the documentary evidence for export of services has not been satisfactorily submitted. The STPI authorities have carried vide their letter dated 28.12.2016 that the Softex Form is required to be submitted as per the RBI guidelines to evidence the export of goods\/services through data communication links. The appellant is not registered with STPI authorities and hence could n<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong><BR>For full text:-<a href=\"https:\/\/www.taxtmi.com\/caselaws?id=364700\">Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n<p>The relevant Rule of Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods &#038; Services) Regulations, 2015 is reproduced below :<br \/>\n &#8220;For the removal of doubt, it is clarified that, in respect of export of services to which none of the forms specified in these Regulations apply, the exporter may export such services without furnishing any declaration, but shall be liable to realise the amount of foreign exchange which becomes due or accrues on account of such export, and to repatriate the same to India in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and these Regulations, as also other rules and regulations made under the Act.&#8221;<br \/>\n &#8220;Declaration in Form SOFTEX<br \/>\n (i) The declaration in Form SOFTEX in respect of export of computer software and audio\/video\/television software shall be submitted in triplicate to the designated official of Ministry of Information Technology, Government of India at the Software Technology Parks of India (STPIs) or at the Free Trade Zones (FTZs) or Special Economic Zones (SEZs<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\"><strong>Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong><BR>For full text:-<a href=\"https:\/\/www.taxtmi.com\/caselaws?id=364700\">Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n<p align=\"center\">=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>M\/s WM Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST &#038; CE, IndoreService Tax2018 (8) TMI 172 &#8211; CESTAT NEW DELHI &#8211; TMICESTAT NEW DELHI &#8211; ATDated:- 18-7-2018Appeal No. ST\/51431\/2018-SM with ST\/Misc. \/50641\/2018 &#8211; Final Order No. 52609\/2018Service TaxHon&#39;ble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member ( Technical ) Shri S. Thirumalai, Consultant &#8211; for the appellant Shri K. Poddar, &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/?p=13000\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;M\/s WM Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST &#038; CE, Indore&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13000","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13000","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13000"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13000\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13000"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13000"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13000"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}