Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: FIRC in Tata Consultancy Services Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 18 December, 2014Matching Fragments
(a) Copies of the invoices raised to their clients- M/s. TCS America-along with softex forms as proof of Export for the period of Export.
(b) Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) with details of Invoice No. and Invoice amount against which the remittances were received.
(c) Details of Invoice on which export rebate is claimed along with details of money received against the same.
(d) Cenvat availed details for the relevant period.
(e) A statement (ST-3) for the same period giving all details.
(vii) The appellant has not established with documentary evidence that the cenvat credit utilized for payment of service tax on the exported services has been correctly availed and have not submitted documents to establish that correctness of the availability of the cenvat credit.
(viii) The invoices and the Softex Forms fail to establish that the services have been exported and therefore the FIRC submitted in support of their claim export of services is not acceptable.
2.3. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority and confirmed the rejection of the rebate claim as under :
The appellants are located in Software Technology Park of India. The services are exported through Software Technology Park of India. The SOFTEX form submitted by them reflect the name and address of the Country, the type of software exported and value of export. It does not reflect details of services exported. These SOFTEX forms are also not certified by the STPI authorities. In many cases incorrect certificates are attached to the SOFTEX form. A statement of invoices is appended with the SOFTEX form as Annexure which indicates the period. Project No., Invoice No/date, Invoice amount (in foreign currency and INR). The FIRC submitted as proof of the amount received in India in convertible foreign exchange indicates the beneficiary, purpose of remittance as per Annexure which indicate the customer name, transaction No. & date, amount received in foreign currency and converted INR. There is no specific description of the services in any of the documents and therefore, it is not possible to ascertain the category of services against which the appellants have claimed rebate. Consequently the conditions, limitations and procedure prescribed for claim of rebate vide Notification No. 11/2005-ST dated 19.4.2005 issued under Rule 5 of Export of Service Rules, 2005 has not been fulfilled The appellants contention that the description is technical in nature and that the name and address of the client, location to which services are rendered clearly suggest that the services have been exported is not tenable. In the absence of proper/specific description of the services the correctness of the correlation of invoices with the corresponding SOFTEX form and FIRC as certified by the Chartered Accountant also is not acceptable.
6.3. The Ld. Counsel also showed the Softex Forms in respect of each of these invoices which are certified by the STPI authorities, and the FIRC certificates relating to each invoice. We do not appreciate how the adjudicating authority failed to notice the certification done by STPI authorities on the Softex forms. The co-relation of various documents as seen by us is shown below in the form of a chart.
Tata Consultancy Services Limited Appeal before CESTAT Mumbai Correlation of the Invoices Alleged in The SCB (Refer Page 117 of the Paper Book) Sr. Invoice Numbers Date Description of Service on Invoice Value of Service (USD) Correlation with the Sales Register Category of Service SOFTEX No. FIRC No. I USFI200930880 01.12.2008 Fees for Services Rendered as per Annexure Attached 66006.26 Pg 357 Sr. 1 Business Support Service Vikhroli/Q3(08-09)/017 230323 Ii USFI200924259 28.10.2008 Fees for Services Rendered as per Annexure Attached (Automatic Event for 209056) 8311.70 Pg. 354 Sr. 595 Business Support Services Thane/Q3(08-09)/048 149160 Iii USFI200931539 11.12.2008 HIET Support Dec08 8892.72 Pg 354 Sr. 601 Information technology software services Thane/Q3(08-09)/048 230323 Iv USFI200931296 02.12.2008 Matrix One/Engineering Central ADK, TCI, MQL/Thick Client RMI Scheme 20158.91 Pg. 356 Sr. 670 Management Maintenance and Repairs Services Thane/Q3(08-09)/048 23023 V USFI200932554 22.12.2008 Monthly Service Charges 7831.25 Pg. 356 sr. 666 Management Maintenance and Repairs Services Thane/Q3(08-09)/048 72484 Vi USFI200930917 01.12.2008 November 2008 Delivery Cycle 7 14778.24 Pg. 357 Sr. 714 Technical Testing and Analysis Services Thane/Q3(08-09)/048 23023 It is unfortunate that the department did not care to go into these details. These details have been provided by the appellant in the form of a large volumes of papers. It is apparent that the adjudicating authority has shown laziness and not cared to go through the papers whereas, in fact, the same authority in order No. PB/R/130/2009 in para-3, himself admits that the documents were submitted. He is contradicting his own statements.