9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (Appeals) who have reached the conclusion that the Rule 3(2)(b) of Export of Services Rules, 2005 has not been satisfied in this case. Consequently it cannot be accepted that the applicant has exported service in this case as per Rule 3(2)(b) of the Export of Services Rules and accordingly the rebate of Service Tax is not admissible to the applicant under Notification No. 11/2005-S.T., dated 19-4-2005. The case laws relied upon by the applicant as mentioned in Para 2(c) are not found relevant in the present proceeding as in none of these decisions it has been held that receipt of payment in foreign currency in a bank situated in a foreign country can be considered as payment in foreign currency in India. Time Limitation - Held that:- The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) also did not succeed and the applicant has filed the above Revision Application mainly on the following grounds - (a) Convertible foreign exchange is received in India as the drawer bank (HSBC, Mauritius) debited the USD amount of Avigo Mauritius and sold the same to HSBC, Mumbai, to purchase INR and then the drawer bank remitted the INR to the applicant. (b) Issuance of certificate of inward foreign remittance is proof of receipt of foreign exchange. (c) The place of conversion of USD to INR is HSBC's prerogative and it is supported by the following case laws : (i) PSA Sical Terminals Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 109 (Tri.-Chennai). (ii) National Engineering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licant has not even made any correspondence regarding the appointment of a new advocate. From these facts it is clear that the applicant is not interested in availing personal hearing and hence this case is taken up for decision on the basis of the Revision Application and other case records. 4. On examination of all relevant case records, it is evident that the rebate claims of the applicant have been rejected mainly on two grounds that the entire claim for ₹ 1,09,72,290/- is not maintainable as foreign exchange against export of services is not received in this case and out of the rebate claim of ₹ 1,09,72,290/- claim of ₹ 52,57,641/- is also time-barred as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act made applicable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dian rupees by HSBC (Mauritius) cannot be considered as receipt of payment in foreign currency in India by any standard. Therefore, the Government agrees with the views of the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) who have reached the conclusion that the Rule 3(2)(b) of Export of Services Rules, 2005 has not been satisfied in this case. Consequently it cannot be accepted that the applicant has exported service in this case as per Rule 3(2)(b) of the Export of Services Rules and accordingly the rebate of Service Tax is not admissible to the applicant under Notification No. 11/2005-S.T., dated 19-4-2005. The case laws relied upon by the applicant as mentioned in Para 2(c) are not found relevant in the present proceeding as in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
