Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (6) TMI 765

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tum of refund - refund claim by the appellants amounts to Rs.4,52,840/-, while the value of export services is limited to Rs.1,92,912/- - Held that:- the amount of refund is governed by the formula under which unutilised credit is multiplied by ratio of export turnover and total turnover and therefore this contention of the Revenue will not have any force if the amount of refund claim satisfies this formula as provided in the Notification. Co-relation between input services and the services exported - Held that:- Refund is liable to be sanctioned after it is verified that input services have gone into the export services and it has to be seen from the concerned invoices also particularly in the present case since the refund pertain to Oc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On scrutiny of the claim, it was observed that some part of the claim pertains to different Division of the Commissionerate and accordingly, the claim was returned to the appellants on 05.09.2011. The revised claim for Rs.4,52,840/- for the period 01.10.2010 to 31.03.2011 was received in the office of the Asst. CCE on 18.11.2011. On scrutiny of the refund claim, it was found by the original authority that the appellants have not fulfilled the conditions of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-CE, dated 14.03.2006 and as such it was the view of the Department that the refund was not admissible to the appellants. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants, which wa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ejected the claim on the ground that value of export services is much less as compared to the total credit availed by them during the relevant period. He submits that under the Notification, the formula is prescribed for claiming refund under Rule 5, according to which the ratio of export turnover to total turnover is multiplied by the CENVAT credit the amount for eligibility of refund. He submits that according to this formula only they have claimed the refund and amount in question is calculated on the basis of this formula. He also relies upon the CBEC Circular No.120/01/2010-ST, dated 19.02.2010 according to which, one-to-one co-relation is not required for sanctioning of refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He, therefo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... output service is exported in accordance with procedure laid down under Export of Services Rules, 2005. The export is complete when the foreign exchange remittances are received in India. Therefore, the Revenue has raised the issue of non-realisation of foreign exchange in respect of the services on which refund has been claimed by the appellants. I find that the appellants have produced a certificate from the bank, i.e., Bank Realisation Certificate for the whole financial year 01.04.2010 to 22.03.2011. In this case, the services are provided to the individual recipient service as yoga services, which are used by the individuals according to various packages taken by them. Each individual has made the payment during the course of the year .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ound in each refund as in the present case. In the case of Dilieep Industries Ltd., supra, it is not clear on what ground the refund was denied by the lower authorities and in the case of Capiq Engineering Pvt. Ltd., the assessee was 100% EOU which fact is not applicable in the present case and the credit was denied on the ground that some of the services were not used in a particular quarter in respect of which the refund was claimed. Therefore, the facts of these cases are distinguishable from the present case as in the present case refund was denied on a different ground. 8. The appellant also relied on the Board circular, according to which one-to-one co-relation between input services and the services exported. I find that Hon ble H .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates