Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Short Notes

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (5) TMI 598

he remittance certificate issued by the bank - HELD THAT:- Apparently the adjudicating authority had made his observation that FIRCs received from bank had no co-relationship with export invoice may be due to such arrear payment pertaining to previous financial year made after March, 2015. Be that as it may, since the appellate authority himself tallied the same and found no error in the re-conciliation statement of the appellant, rejection of refund claim 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

r General (PADG), DGPM, WRU, Mumbai the same rejection order found confirmation despite the fact that the findings of the adjudicating authority that statement submitted by the appellant was not tallying with the export invoices and foreign remittance was held as invalid by the PADG. The only ground of rejection therefore remained confined to the unacceptability 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 N .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

that it was rightly observed by the first appellate authority that despite several dates of hearing granted to the appellant who was heard personally, no such evidence was produced before the appellate authority to establish that bank had a policy/mandate not to supply such invoice detail against FIRCs and therefore 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 autho .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

mself tallied the same and found no error in the re-conciliation statement of the appellant, rejection of refund claim 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. 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 date .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||