Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: FIRC in Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Aam Services India Pvt. Ltd on 27 October, 2015Matching Fragments
3. Learned departmental representative after taking me through the order-in-appeal submits that the first appellate authority has in correctly understood the export turnover of services. It is his submission that for arriving at refund amount, there should be receipt an amount under notification no. 27/2012, filling of refund claim should be with copies of FIRCS/bank certificate, hence conclusion reached by the first appellate authority in respect of receipt of payment is wrong and is not covered under provisions Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. It is also his submission that filing of the refund claim under rule 5 also to needs to read with limitation as prescribed under provisions of section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944; would mean that in this case assessee has filed two refund claim beyond one year and the findings that there is curtailment of period as has been recorded by the first appellate authority is erroneous. It is his further submission that the claim in this appeal having been filed beyond time limit under section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944, refund claim is correctly denied.
4. Learned consultant appearing on behalf of the respondent assessee would draw my attention by the same findings, submit that appellant has filed a refund claim within the period that is after the end of the quarter. It is his submission that provisions of rules 6A of the Central Excise rules, is fulfilled and FIRCS as required are submitted. He took me through two rules, rule 5 and rule 6A. He would submit that the judgment of the tribunal in the case of Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (34) S.T.R. 437, records about non applicability of section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944. He produces a statement along with copy of details of export made, FIRCS and indicates that these have been considered by the first appellate authority while passing the impugned order.
S.No. FIRC Date FIRC No. Date of Receipt of FIRC FRIC Amount (Rs.) Remarks 17.8.12 114892 17.8.12 7880873 Part receipt for April, 12 29.8.12 115230 29.8.12 8214000 Part receipt for April, 12 11.9.12 115644 11.9.12 5461000 Part receipt for April, 12 18.9.12 115911 18.9.12 16050000 Part receipt for April & May, 12 27.9.12 116309 27.9.12 11027100 Part receipt for May, 12 As explained in para 14 above, the said payments totaling Rs. 4,86,32,973/- are required to be included in the Export Turnover of services as per clause (D) of Rule 5(l) of the CCR. Thus, I find that the Export Turnover of services is Rs. 4,86,32,973/- (Rs. NIL+ Rs. 4,86,32,973/-). The Appellant have calculated the Export Turnover of services at Rs.9,57,65,100/- which is found incorrect.
16. I also find that the Appellant have also included the following invoices for calculating Export Turnover of services as below:
Against services exported before 01-04-2012, but payments received during July to September 2012:
S.No. FIRC Date FIRC No. Date of Receipt of FIRC FRIC Amount (Rs.) Remarks 9.7.12 113510 9.7.12 16581000 Part receipt of Feb, 12 & Mar, 12
17.7.12 113765 17.7.12 10850000 Part receipt for Mar, 12 24.7.12 114008 24.7.12 11070000 Part receipt for Mar, 12 17.8.12 114892 17.8.12 8631127 Part receipt for Mar, 12 However, the above payments totaling 4,71,32,127/- are not eligible for inclusion in the Export Turnover off services as per clause (D) of Rule 5(1) of the CCR.