2019 (11) TMI 1263 - AT - Central Excise

Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit - claim for refund was rejected by the original authority, as the respondent failed to submit documentary evidence SOFTEX Form - Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with the relevant Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 - HELD THAT - The Bench enquired from the learned Authorised Representative if Revenue has filed any appeal, to inform accordingly. In response thereto, by communication dated 29.03.2019 signed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST CE Hqrs. Indore, have informed that both the Final orders referred to hereinabove passed by this Tribunal have been accepted by the competent authority, on monetary ground only - no merits found in the appeal. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the filing of 'Softex Form' is mandatory in this case?
2. In the absence of filing of 'Softex Form', whether there is substantial compliance with all conditions of Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT)?
3. Whether the rejection of the refund claim by the adjudicating authority is justified?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The dispute revolved around the mandatory requirement of filing the 'Softex Form' to prove export of services. The respondent claimed a refund of accumulated cenvat credit for the period October 2016 to March 2017 under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, supported by necessary documents but lacking the 'Softex Form'. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, citing previous Tribunal orders that deemed 'Softex Form' submission unnecessary for export proof. The Commissioner emphasized substantial compliance based on invoices, FIRC's, and CA certificate, leading to the conclusion that 'Softex Form' was not obligatory.

Issue 2:
The Commissioner's decision was influenced by previous Tribunal orders, including Final Order No. 52609/2018 and Final Order No. 52907/2018, which established that substantial compliance with export and foreign exchange receipt sufficed, even without the 'Softex Form'. The Commissioner found the rejection of the refund claim unjustified, following judicial discipline and precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Commissioner emphasized that procedural issues should not invalidate a valid refund claim once substantial compliance with export conditions is established.

Issue 3:
The Revenue appealed the order, arguing that the 'Softex Form' was mandatory as per RBI guidelines and STPI confirmation. However, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, noting that the Revenue's failure to appeal previous final orders signified acceptance. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the Commissioner's decision aligned with precedent and legal requirements, providing consequential benefits to the respondent.

In conclusion, the judgment centered on the necessity of 'Softex Form' submission, the concept of substantial compliance, and the validity of refund claims based on established export evidence, ultimately favoring the respondent and rejecting the Revenue's appeal.