Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The respondent 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 respondent was registered for providing taxable services including „Information Technology Software Service‟. The dispute pertains to the claim for refund filed by the respondent for the period October, 2016 to March, 2017, 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 respondent 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, as the respondent failed to submit documentary evidence - „SOFTEX Form‟.

3. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who framed the issue as follows:

"7. I find that the issues before me for decision are-
(i) Whether the filing of „Softex Form‟ is mandatory in this case as held by the adjudicating authority?
(ii) In the absence of filing of Softex Form, whether there is substantial compliance of all conditions of Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT), dated 18.06.2012 as claimed by the Appellant?
(iii) Whether the rejection of refund claim in this case by the adjudicating authority is justified?

4. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) was pleased to allow the appeal by following the Final Order No. 52609/2018 dated 18.07.2018 by this Tribunal in respondent‟s own case being Appeal No. ST/51431/2018-SM and have recorded the following finding:

"10. Therefore, I find that Hon‟ble CESTAT has held that there is no requirement of submission of SOFTEX form in case of appellant. It is also held that there is substantial compliance of export of service and receipt of foreign exchange as evident from the documents like the invoices, FIRC‟s and CA certificate.
12.2 Therefore, I find that impugned adjudication order passed by the adjudicating authority is not legal, proper and correct and hence it is liable to be set aside. Held accordingly.
13. In view of above discussion and my findings, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the impugned order is set aside."

5. Being aggrieved by the order-in-appeal, the Revenue is in appeal on the ground that, filing of SOFTEX Form is the mandatory requirement as per guidelines issued by RBI. Moreover, the Additional Director, STPI, Indore vide letter dated 28.12.2016 also confirmed that in case of offshore export of goods/ services through data communication link, it necessary to declare the same through SOFTEX Form, as per the RBI guidelines. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the Revenue appeal.