2017 (4) TMI 228 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - denial on the ground that the appellants did not produce Bank Realisation Certificate (BRC) in terms of Appendix 22 (A) as prescribed by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade and also that they did not furnish the SOFTEX returns from the STPI authorities as per the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - Held that - The appellant while filing the refund claim, has submitted documents alongwith covering letter dt. 29.3.2013. It is stated in this covering letter that they have furnished the Bank Realisation Certificate - The appellants have already produced the BRC as well as FIRC which is evident from their covering letter, the rejection of refund claim on the ground that the appellant has not produced BRC in terms of Appendix 22A is unsustainable. 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 above regulations shows that the insistence to furnish SOFTEX returns from STPI authorities is not as per law laid in the relevant field. The refund claim has been wrongly rejected - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on non-production of Bank Realisation Certificate (BRC) and SOFTEX returns from STPI authorities.

Analysis:
1. Bank Realisation Certificate (BRC) Issue:
- The appellant filed refund claims under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 but faced rejection for not producing BRC as per Appendix 22 (A) and SOFTEX returns.
- The appellant argued that BRC is only applicable for export by post, not for export of services, and provided evidence of submitting BRC along with other documents.
- The covering letter submitted by the appellant clearly mentioned the submission of BRC and other relevant documents, establishing compliance with the requirement.
- The Tribunal found that the authorities erred in demanding BRC in terms of Appendix 22A, as the document pertains to export by post, not services. The rejection based on non-production of BRC was deemed unsustainable.

2. SOFTEX Returns Issue:
- The second ground for rejection was the non-submission of SOFTEX returns from STPI authorities, which the appellant contended was not mandatory for export of services.
- The Tribunal referenced the relevant regulations clarifying that SOFTEX declaration is for export of goods and software, not services, as per Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods & Services) Regulations, 2015.
- It was concluded that the insistence on furnishing SOFTEX returns for services did not align with the legal requirements.

3. Final Decision:
- After thorough examination, the Tribunal held that the refund claim rejection was unjustified, and the appellant was eligible for the refund.
- Consequently, the impugned order rejecting the claim was set aside, and the appeals of the appellant were allowed with any consequential reliefs.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, regulatory references, and the Tribunal's decision, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the case.