Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(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.

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.

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.