Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Since this issue has been settled in the judgments listed above they are entitled to refund.

Appeal No. ST/21159/2014

4. His second argument was that both the lower authorities have erred in holding that they failed to establish the remittance of foreign exchange under FIRC covered by each invoice. They had submitted refund claim for the period January 2010 to March 2010. They had raised invoices for US $ 11,62,000 during that period and the invoices and corresponding FIRC number and date had been certified by the Chartered Accountant at the stage of show cause notice itself. He further submits that their banker has also since certified the amounts received against each invoice and corresponding FIRC and the same is enclosed at page 104 of the appeal book. Copies of corresponding SOFTEX forms (forms meant to monitor remittance of foreign exchange), invoice copies and FIRCs were enclosed at pages 64-102 of the paper book. He would further submit that one of the contentions in the de-novo order is that the import value of the services on which they have claimed Cenvat credit is Rs. 15.68 crores whereas the value of the exported services is merely Rs. 5.5 crores and no business of ordinary prudence would spend more on inputs/input services than they receive for their final services. He would submit that the reason for this confusion is that the refund claims were filed for the first quarter in January to March 2010. Using the same input service viz., Netcool Suite, further exports were made during the subsequent periods. He further submits that one of the apprehensions of the Department was as to how the foreign exchange was received well before the invoice was raised. He clarifies that this was because advances were received by them from their clients even before the actual export took place. These advances were subsequently set off against actual exports. He submits RBI's letter HY.FE.IMP/2420 dated 05.02.2009/2009-10 dated December 30, 2009 to support his claim that this set off has been permitted by the RBI. He would therefore urge that there is no case for the Department to reject their refund claim under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.