9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... WML, USA. The appellant 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, 2016 to September 2016, 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 18/06/2012. 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 appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that the appellant is satisfying all the conditions 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 learned 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 Cenvat Credit Rules, 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-fulfillment of Condition (g) of the relevant notification, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Softex Forms are requirement only in the case of software export in media form. 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 analyzed 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant field."
10. The Tribunal has concluded as above that the insistence to furnish Softex returns from STP authorities is not as per the law laid down in the relevant field. In the present case also, the appellant has claimed to have exported Information Technology Software Service. The fact of export of such software and the receipt of the foreign exchange therefore is sufficiently evidenced from the invoices, the FIRCs and the Chartered Accountant's certificate certifying the total turnover.
11. In view of the above, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to refund in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules. The impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court.) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
