9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m on the ground that FIRCs statement submitted by the bank did not contained invoice no. is contrary to the procedural requirement in view of clarificatory Circular dated 12.03.2009. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 87356 of 2018 - A/85849/2019 - Dated:- 6-5-2019 - DR. SUVENDU KUMAR PATI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Kavish Shah, C.A. with Shri Rushabh Gandhi for the Appellant Shri Sudhir B. Mane, Assistant Commissioner, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Rejection of refund claim against unutilised CENVAT credit availed during export of Information Technology Software Services on the grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cceptability of appellant s contention that FIRCs received from bank did not reflect the export invoice details as per bank policy/mandate. Appellant assailed the said rejection order before this forum. 3. In the memo of appeal and during the course of hearing of appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant Shri Kavish Shah, and Shri Rushabh Gandhi submitted that in view of clarificatory Circular No. 112/06/2009-ST dated 12.03.2009 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, linkage between export invoice and remittance is not required when FIRCs are issued on consolidated basis to exporters by their customers regularly and refund should be allowed on such certified statements of the claimant, who is required to maintain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re Principal Additional Director General s order as the first appellate authority needs no interference by the Tribunal. 5. Heard from both sides at length and gone through the case record and letter received from the appellant s bank M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank, which was taken on record as produced in conformity to Rule 23 of the CESTAT Procedure Rule. As found from the Order-in- Original, it has been noted by the adjudicating authority that claimant had submitted relevant documents for refund claim. In para 3 of the order at point no. XI, copy of export ledger was stated to have been received for refund processing along with export invoices, FIRCs, export register etc. Going by the Circular dated 12.03.2009 such linkage in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, in carrying forward the judicial precedence set by the CESTAT, Bangalore Bench in Broadcom India Research Pvt. Ltd. judgment cited above that self certification of FIRC is sufficient as there is no need for bankers certificate on FIRC, the following order is passed. ORDER 6. The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the Principal Additional Director General, DGPM, WRU, Mumbai vide Order-in- Appeal No. MUM-DGPM-WRU/APP-48/17-18 dated 23.03.2018 is hereby set aside. The appellant is entitled to get refund of ₹ 9,55,319/- along with applicable interest and the respondent-department is directed to pay the same within three months from receipt of this order. (Order pronounce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
