9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being a procedural requirement and if the appellant is able to establish the receipt of foreign exchange with the invoices, the appellant cannot be denied substantive benefit of refund - For the limited purpose of verification of these remittances with the invoices, the matter is remitted to adjudicating authority. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - ST/40979 to 40991/2017 - 40806-40818/2018 - Dated:- 15-3-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) and Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri S. Ramachandran, Consultant for the Appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in providing conversion servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of remittance of foreign exchange to compute the period of one year. He relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Vs. Scioinspire Consulting Services (I) P. Ltd. 2017 (42) STR 188 and argued that the Tribunal in the said case had held that the relevant date in the case of export of services would be the date of receipt of foreign exchange. He relied upon Chief Commissioner s Circular dated 26.10.2016 wherein the department has stated that the decisions in the cases of Bechtel India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi 2014 (34) STR 437; CST, Goa Vs. Ratio Pharma India P. Ltd. 2015 (39) STR (Tri. LB) and Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Vs. Eaton Industries P. Ltd. 2011 (922) STR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are well within time. We find that the decisions as stated in the Chief Commissioner s circular dated 26.10.2016 clarifies that in case of export of services, the relevant date is the date of receipt of foreign remittance. Following the same, we hold that the rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation is unjustified and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do. 7. Refund in respect of Issues 2, 3 and 4, as shown in the Table, has been rejected for the reason that the appellant has not been able to produce the FIRCs. However, the ld. consultant submitted that he would be able to correlate the remittances with the invoices. Production of FIRCs being a procedural requirement and if the appellant is able to establish the rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
