Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iv) The details of the services exported are required to be declared in the SOFTEX Form also, but the SOFTEX forms are not showing such declaration. Therefore, the claim of export of services is not acceptable.
(v) TCS America has been awarded contracts by clients viz. Worldspan L.P., Olive Software, Honeywell Inc. and IT Corporation, and further sub contracted the same to TCS India. But this fact is not shown in their (TCS America) Master Service Agreement with clients.
(vi) With reference to CBEC Circular No. 868/6/2005-CX dt. 9.5.2008, they are liable to establish with documentary evidence that they exported the services and paid service tax but they failed to do so.
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.

3. Heard both sides.

4. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant at the outset stated that they have submitted each and every document running into volumes of paper books to establish that the rebate claims were made on the basis of documents evidencing the nature of service exported and co-relating the same with the classification of service under the Finance Act, 1994, the invoices under which the services were exported, the Softex form relating to each invoice, the certification of the Softex forms by STPI authorities in every case, FIRC certificates co-relating the foreign inward remittance with each invoice, and lastly the sales registers showing the invoices under which the services were exported, the category of the service, the payment of service tax through the cenvat account. The Ld. Counsel further stated that the appellants were held ineligible for rebate basically for the following reasons:

6. We have considered the rival contentions. The basis for holding (by Revenue) that the rebate is not admissible centers around the following five points :

(a) The SOFTEX Forms do not reflect the details of service exported.
(b) The forms are not certified by STPI Authorities and in many cases, incorrect certificates are attached to the SOFTEX Forms.
(c) There is no specific description of the services in the documents matching the description of services in Section 65(105) and the category of taxable services cannot be ascertained and various documents viz invoices, softex forms, FIRCs cannot be correlated.