Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: softex in Wm Logistics India Private Limited vs Indore on 27 August, 2018Matching Fragments
Appearance Shri S. Thirumalai, Advocate - for the appellant. Shri K. Poddar, Authorized Representative (DR) - for the Respondent.
CORAM: Hon'ble Shri C.L. Mahar, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 52902/2018 Dated : 27/08/2018 Per. C.L. Mahar :-
The present appeal challenges the Order-in-Appeal No. IND-EXCUS-000-APP-759-17-18 dated 26/03/2018.
2. The appellant is a 100% subsidiary of WM Logistics LLC, USA. As per the agreement with their parent company, they provided product development support services for collection and disposal activities of WML, USA. The appellant was registered for 2 ST/51802 of 2018 providing taxable services including „Information Technology Software Service‟. The dispute pertains to the claim for refund filed by the appellant for the period April, 2016 to September 2016, for refund of accumulated Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with the relevant Notification No. 27/2012 - CE (NT) dated 18/06/2012. The appellant claimed that they have exported their output service. The claim was supported by the necessary documents, as required under the relevant notification. The claim for refund was rejected by the original authority and the same was also upheld by the impugned order. The main reason for rejection of such refund claim is that the appellant failed to submit documentary evidence for export of services in the form of „Softex Forms‟. The lower authorities have recorded that the submission of Softex Forms duly certified by the Software Technology Park (India) (STPI) Authorities is a requirement in the case of off shore export of services through data communication link, as per the RBI guidelines. Aggrieved by the rejection of their refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the present appeal has been filed.
8. In respect of the refund claims filed by the appellant for the quarter April 2016 to September 2016, the only objection recorded by the lower authorities is that the documentary evidence for export of services has not been satisfactorily submitted. The STPI authorities have vide their letter dated 28/12/2016 that the Softex Form is required to be submitted as per the RBI guidelines to evidence the export of goods/services through data communication links. The appellant is not registered with STPI authorities and hence could not submit such forms but through this appeal have claimed that the Softex Form is not a 5 ST/51802 of 2018 requirement for export of services through internet. It has been submitted that the Softex Forms are requirement only in the case of software export in media form. To this effect they have relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mobile Iron India Software Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
9. I have carefully considered the decision of the Tribunal in the case cited by the appellant. In the said case also one of the grounds for rejection of refund was non-production of Softex returns from STPI authorities. The Tribunal has analyzed the issue and has observed as follows:
"8. The second ground for rejection of the refund is that the appellant has not produced SOFTEX returns from STPI authorities. Again, the said document as per Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods & Services) Regulations, 2015, shows that it relates with export of goods and software and not with regard to export of services. The relevant Rule of Foreign Exchange Management (Export of Goods & Services) Regulations, 2015 is reproduced below :
(ii) After certifying all three copies of the SOFTEX form, the said designated official shall forward the original directly to the nearest office of the Reserve Bank and return the duplicate to the exporter. The triplicate shall be retained by the designated official for record."
9. The above regulations shows that the insistence to furnish SOFTEX returns from STPI authorities is not as per law laid in the relevant field."
10. The Tribunal has concluded as above that the insistence to furnish Softex returns from STP authorities is not as per the law laid down in the relevant field. In the present case also, the appellant has claimed to have exported Information Technology Software Service. The fact of export of such software and the receipt of the foreign exchange therefore is sufficiently evidenced from the invoices, the FIRCs and the Chartered Accountant‟s certificate certifying the total turnover.