Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Amnet Systems Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Chennai Ii on 15 March, 2018
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Appeal No. ST/40979 to 40991/2017
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos. 55 to 67/2017 (STA II) dated 21.2.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, (Appeals II), Chennai)
M/s. Amnet Systems Pvt. Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai II Respondent
Appearance Shri S. Ramachandran, Consultant for the Appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Honble Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing / Decision: 15.03.2018 Final Order Nos. 40806-40818 / 2018 Per Bench Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in providing conversion services of e-books to electronic files / publishing services etc. falling under Business Auxiliary Services. They filed refund claim for different periods under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 r/w Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT). After due process of law, the original authority sanctioned part of the refund claim and rejected the remaining on the following grounds:-
S. No. Description of ineligible turnover Ineligible Turnover Ineligible Refund
1.
FIRC within one year but invoice date beyond one year 8,14,106,957 1,22,63,443
2. Remittance received through PayPal 71,81,400 98,595
3. Remittance received by cheques 77,45,385 1,12,682
4. Remittance through RTGS Transfer 2,09,45,698 2,56,292
5. Remittance not supported by FIRCs 4,63,52,407 8,53,037
2. Aggrieved, the appellant is now before the Tribunal.
3. On behalf of the appellant, ld. consultant Shri S. Ramachandran submitted that the authority below has erred in computing the period of limitation of filing of refund claim. They have taken the relevant date as the date of invoice instead of the date of remittance of foreign exchange to compute the period of one year. He relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai Vs. Scioinspire Consulting Services (I) P. Ltd. 2017 (42) STR 188 and argued that the Tribunal in the said case had held that the relevant date in the case of export of services would be the date of receipt of foreign exchange. He relied upon Chief Commissioners Circular dated 26.10.2016 wherein the department has stated that the decisions in the cases of Bechtel India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi 2014 (34) STR 437; CST, Goa Vs. Ratio Pharma India P. Ltd. 2015 (39) STR (Tri. LB) and Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Vs. Eaton Industries P. Ltd. 2011 (922) STR 223 Which have been accepted by the department wherein the relevant date for computing the period of one year has been taken as the receipt of foreign exchange.
3.1 With regard to issues No. 2, 3 and 4 as stated in the above Table, ld. consultant submitted that the remittances were received through PayPal, Cheques, RTGS Transfer etc. With regard to these remittances, the appellant would be able to establish the receipt of foreign exchange as well as the invoices pertaining to the service provided. That the refund cannot be rejected on the ground that FIRCs were not produced; being procedural lapse the same may be condoned. In respect of fifth issue of non-production of FIRCs, as shown in the Table above, he submitted that the appellant has now received the FIRCs with respect to various transactions and would be able to furnish the FIRCs.
4. The ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy reiterated the findings in the impugned order.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The first issue that arises for consideration is whether the relevant date for computing the period of limitation of one year for filing the refund claim is to be taken as the date in the invoice or the date of the receipt of foreign exchange. The Tribunal in the above decision, cited by ld. counsel, has held that the relevant date is to be reckoned from the date of receipt of foreign exchange. Ld. consultant has submitted that when the relevant date is reckoned as the date of receipt of foreign currency, the refund claims are well within time. We find that the decisions as stated in the Chief Commissioners circular dated 26.10.2016 clarifies that in case of export of services, the relevant date is the date of receipt of foreign remittance. Following the same, we hold that the rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation is unjustified and requires to be set aside, which we hereby do.
7. Refund in respect of Issues 2, 3 and 4, as shown in the Table, has been rejected for the reason that the appellant has not been able to produce the FIRCs. However, the ld. consultant submitted that he would be able to correlate the remittances with the invoices. Production of FIRCs being a procedural requirement and if the appellant is able to establish the receipt of foreign exchange with the invoices, we are of the view that the appellant cannot be denied substantive benefit of refund. For the limited purpose of verification of these remittances with the invoices, we remand the matter to the adjudicating authority.
8. The fifth issue to be addressed is the rejection of refund for non-production of FIRCs. The ld. consultant has submitted that the appellant would be able to furnish the FIRCs if given a further chance. This issue also is remanded to the adjudicating authority to process the refund claim after giving opportunity to the appellant to furnish the FIRCs.
9. In the result, the appeals are disposed of in the above terms with consequential benefit, if any.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(V.Padmanabhan) (Sulekha Beevi C.S.)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Rex
5