Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. He drew attention to page 73 of OIO (para-6) of Appeal ST/40423/2014, Table 3 and explained in detail with regard to how the appellants claimed the refund by computing the total value wherein it was mentioned that Net CENVAT Credit after deducting those credits for which separate proceedings were initiated was Rs. 1,80,76,926. He mentioned that while this amount was not under dispute, the dispute is on account of Export Turnover and Total Turnover. It was submitted that as per Appellant claim, the value of Export turnover was Rs.659,81,11,217/- ( including exports from STP and SEZ units), value of domestic turnover was Rs. 18,44,27,676/- and total turnover was Rs. 678, 25,38,893/-. As per the turnover, it was submitted that the Appellant should have been granted a refund of Rs. 1,75,85,386/ - whereas the Department had granted only Rs. 86,32,133/ -; the refund has been restricted by the Department by adopting export turnover of services from STPI units alone i.e. Rs.323,88,12,961/- in the export turnover (i.e. numerator) and retaining the total turnover of Rs.678,25,38,893/- (i.e. denominator). He submitted that where the adjudicating authority at para 15.2 and 15.4 and at page 77 under para-23 has computed the total turnover (including the value of export services) to be Rs. 678,25,38,893/- then the export value also should be taken as Rs.659,81,11,217/-

11. Assailing the methodology adopted by the lower adjudicating authority, it was submitted that even if the Department wanted to restrict the export turnover (i.e. numerator) only to the value of services exported from STPI units ( i.e. 323, 88,12,961) then the total turnover should have alternatively been export turnover of STPI services + DTA services i.e. ( Rs. 323,88,12,961+ Rs. 18,44,27,676= Rs.342,32,40,637). Even if this alternative formula were adopted, if the refund amount would have been Rs. 1,71,03,028 (i.e. 1,80,76,926 X 323,88,12,961/342,32,40,637) which is substantially higher than the refund granted by the Department.

16. Applying the provisions described in Para 15 above on the present case, I find that the Appellant have included the Invoice No. Mar'12-01 and Invoice No. Mar 12-02, both dated 30-03-2012, in the present refund claim on the ground that payments in respect of the same were received on 11-04-2012. However, the export of services covered by the said invoices had been completed prior to 31-03-2012, as reflected in the date of issuance of the said invoices. As provisions of new Rule 5 of the CCR are applicable to the exports made on or after 01-04-2012, the exports covered said invoices issued prior to 01-04-2012 have to be excluded from the present refund claim for arriving at export turnover of the present quarter of April 2012 to June 2012. For calculating export turnover of the services and total turnover of services for relevant period of April-June 2012, only those services which were provided after 01-04-2012 need to be considered. Further, it is clear from the figures mentioned in the Order-in-Original that the Appellant had exported their entire turnover and had not provided any services to Domestic Tariff Area in therelevant period. Therefore, the 'export turnover' would be equal to the 'total turnover', in terms of clause (E) of Rule 5(1) of the CCR. Accordingly, the figures of 'Export Turnover of Services' and Total Turnover' come to Rs.11,95,79,832/- each.

17. In view of the above discussions, I find that the admissible refundamount needs to be re-calculated. The same is done as under:

Export turnover of services = 11,95,79,832/-
Total Turnover= 11,95,79,832/-
Net CENVAT Credit=41,52,535/-
Refund amount = Export turnover of services X Net CENVAT credit Total turnover = 11,95,79,832 x 41,52,535 = 41,52,535/-
11,95,79,832 Since refund of Rs. 27,67,134/- has already been granted vide the impugned Order-in-Original, the appellant are found entitled to further refund of Rs.13,85,401/- only. (41,52,435/- minus 27,67,134/- = 13,85,401/-)