Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.4 From the FIRC's submitted by the appellant, it was noticed that the payment of their service income mentioned in the FIRCs are in the name of M/s. REED Information Service, Delhi, and the amount is received in Indian currency and not in convertible foreign currency. 4.5 Further vide office letter C.No. IV/16/492/2010 Gr-II RF dated 23.12.2010, the appellant was asked to explain receipt of export income in INR. In their replies dated 01.03.2011 and 25.05.2011, the appellant stated that M/s. Reed Elsevier India Pvt. Ltd. is a registered branch of M/s. Reed Information Services, with centralized accounts at Delhi, and that invoices were raised from Delhi while payments were received in INR in a Citibank Chennai account. Relying on the Export of Service Rules and Section 2(n) of the FEMA Act, 1999, the appellant contended that receipt in INR qualifies as convertible foreign exchange.

8.4 The appellant has placed reliance on the case of Sun Real Estate Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Mumbai 2015-TIOL-956-CESTAT-MUM wherein the Tribunal considered whether receipt of consideration in Indian rupees, supported by Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs), satisfies the requirement of "receipt in convertible foreign exchange" under Rule 3(2) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005. It was not disputed that the appellant received payment in Indian rupees through Deutsche Bank and that FIRCs were issued by the authorised dealer. The Tribunal held that FIRCs are issued only in respect of foreign exchange and, in the present case, expressly certified that the amounts were not received in non-convertible rupees. Relying on Notifications issued under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, particularly FEMA Notification No. 9/2000-RB and FEMA Notification No. 14/2000-RB, the Tribunal observed that receipt of payment in Indian rupees from the account of a bank situated outside India and maintained with an authorised dealer is deemed to be repatriation of realised foreign exchange. Consequently, such receipt is to be treated as receipt in convertible foreign exchange. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that mere receipt of consideration in Indian currency does not disentitle an assessee from export benefits when the remittance originates from abroad through authorised banking channels and is evidenced by FIRCs. The condition prescribed under Rule 3(2) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005 was therefore held to be satisfied. The Tribunal further held that security services and air travel services having a direct nexus with export of services qualify as input services. The appeal was allowed, except to the extent of the amount already held admissible by the lower authority. 8.5 The Appellant further relied upon the following cases: -

8.6 Further the appellants stated that the finding of the Learned Commissioner that the FIRCs are not addressed to the appellant exporting services from Chennai is erroneous.

The appellant operates a centralized accounting system, pursuant to which export proceeds are remitted to the Delhi bank account. Notwithstanding this, the FIRCs themselves clearly certify that the remittance pertains to "Chennai OPS Elsevier India," thereby establishing that the consideration was received in respect of services rendered by the Chennai division. Merely because the FIRCs are addressed in the name of M/s. Reed Information Service Tele-direct, New Delhi, the export character of the services cannot be denied. Further, Rule 3(2) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 requires receipt of consideration in convertible foreign exchange and does not mandate that such receipt must be in the bank account of the service-providing unit. Accordingly, receipt of export proceeds in a centralized bank account cannot be a valid ground for denial of refund. The existence of a separate bank account at Chennai is also irrelevant for the purposes of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and the refund cannot be denied merely on the basis that the remittance was credited to the Delhi bank account.

9. The Appellants had placed reliance on the following decisions in the cases of: -

9.1 Sun Real Estate Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Mumbai 1 2015- TIOL-956-CESTAT-MUM wherein the Tribunal considered whether receipt of consideration in Indian rupees, supported by Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs), satisfies the requirement of "receipt in convertible foreign exchange" under Rule 3(2) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005. It was not disputed that the appellant received payment in Indian rupees through Deutsche Bank and that FIRCs were issued by the authorised dealer. The Tribunal held that FIRCs are issued only in respect of foreign exchange and, in the present case, expressly certified that the amounts were not received in non-convertible rupees. Relying on Notifications issued under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, particularly FEMA Notification No. 9/2000-RB and FEMA Notification No. 14/2000-RB, the Tribunal observed that receipt of payment in Indian rupees from the account of a bank situated outside India and maintained with an authorised dealer is deemed to be repatriation of realised foreign exchange. Consequently, such receipt is to be treated as receipt in convertible foreign exchange. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that mere receipt of consideration in Indian currency does not disentitle an assessee from export benefits when the remittance originates from abroad through authorised banking channels and is evidenced by FIRCs. The condition prescribed under Rule 3(2) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005 was therefore held to be satisfied. The Tribunal further held that security services and air travel services having a direct nexus with export of services qualify as input services. The appeal was allowed, except to the extent of the amount already held admissible by the lower authority.