9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed application for refund of unutilised CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 2,97,776/- for the period April 2012 to June 2012 and also Rs. 2,72,900/- for the period July 2012 to September 2012. The refund claims have been filed under rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 read with notification No. 27/2012 C.E, dated 18.6.2012. The refund claims were rejected for the reason that the appellants did not produce Bank Realisation Certificate (BRC) in terms of Appendix 22 (A) as prescribed by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade and also that they did not furnish the SOFTEX returns from the STPI authorities as per the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. Hence this appeal. 3. On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Counsel Shri B.G. Chidananda submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies. 5. I have examined the submissions made before me. 6. The first ground for rejecting the refund is that the appellant has not furnished the Bank Realisation Certificate. The appellant while filing the refund claim, has submitted documents alongwith covering letter dt. 29.3.2013. It is stated in this covering letter that they have furnished the Bank Realisation Certificate. The relevant portion of the letter is reproduced below: " No. 867/28.3.2013 The Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Service Tax, Hyderabad-IV, Range-I. Dear Sir/Madam, Sub: Refund of Cenvat Credit under rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Please find enclosed the following documents for refund of Cenvat Credit under rule 5 of the Cenvat Credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt is to be furnished, I am able to understand that this document relates only in respect of export by post. Therefore, I find that the authorities below have wrongly required the appellant to produce BRC as in Appendix 22 A. The appellants have already produced the BRC as well as FIRC which is evident from their covering letter, I am of the view that the rejection of refund claim on the ground that the appellant has not produced BRC in terms of Appendix 22A is unsustainable. 8. The second ground for rejection of the refund is that the appellant has not produced SOFTEX returns from STPI authorities. Again, the said document as per Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods & Services) Regulations, 2015, shows that it relates with export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
