9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant was registered for providing taxable services including 'Information Technology Software Service'. The dispute pertains to the claim for refund filed by the appellant for the period April, 2015 to September 2015, for refund of accumulated Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with the relevant Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.6.2012. The appellant claimed that they have exported their output service. The claim was supported by the necessary documents, as required under the relevant notification. The claim for refund was rejected by the original authority and the same was also upheld by the impugned order. The main reason for rejection of such refund claim is that the appellant failed to submit do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditions prescribed in the Notification No. 27/2012 as well as Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 and is entitled to such refund and the same may be ordered to be paid. 5. The ld. DR justified the impugned order and pointed out that the departmental authorities need to be satisfied with the fact that the services have been exported and the foreign exchange received is towards such exports. Only subject to such satisfaction, the refund under Rule 5 of the CCR, 2004 can be sanctioned. He argued that the original authority has recorded that the appellant has failed to submit documentary evidence for export. For non-fulfilment of Condition (g) of the relevant notification, the refunds have been rightly rejected. The requirement of submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . To this effect they have relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mobile Iron India Software Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 9. I have carefully considered the decision of the Tribunal in the case cited by the appellant. In the said case also one of the grounds for rejection of refund was non-production of Softex returns from STPI authorities. The Tribunal has analysed the issue and has observed as follows: "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 of goods and software and not with regard to export of services. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
