Appellant's Service Tax Refund Appeal Upheld With Exceptions

The appellant's refund claims for service tax paid on exported input services were initially rejected on grounds of consideration not received in foreign currency, time-barred claim amount, and alleged improper maintenance of accounts. The Tribunal found the rejection based on non-receipt in foreign currency unwarranted after the appellant provided evidence through a banker's certificate. The appellant agreed to forego the time-barred claim amount, and the rejection was upheld. The allegation of improper accounts maintenance was dismissed as the appellant's computerized accounts met legal requirements. The appeal was allowed, except for the contested amount of Rs. 1,05,813, which was rejected.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim related to two different periods - Rejection of refund claim on three grounds - (1) Consideration not received in foreign currency, (2) Time-barred claim amount, (3) Alleged improper maintenance of accounts.

Analysis:
The appellant, a service provider for Business Support Service, filed two refund claims for service tax paid on input services exported only. The Revenue rejected the claims citing three grounds. Firstly, it contended that the consideration was not received in convertible foreign currency. Secondly, it argued that a portion of the claim was time-barred due to lack of service date availability. Thirdly, it alleged improper maintenance of accounts by the appellant.

Upon hearing both sides, the appellant provided evidence through a certificate issued by their banker, ICICI Bank, confirming that the payment received from a Canadian firm was converted into Indian currency and paid to the appellant. Citing RBI instructions, the Tribunal agreed that the rejection based on non-receipt in foreign currency was unwarranted.

Regarding the time-barred claim amount, the appellant agreed to forego the small amount involved, amounting to Rs. 1,05,813, and did not contest its rejection. This portion of the appeal was held as uncontested and rejection was upheld.

In response to the allegation of improper accounts maintenance, the appellant produced a statement showing detailed computerized accounts containing all necessary information. The Tribunal noted that the computerized accounts fulfilled legal requirements and contained all required details from invoices. It was established that maintaining accounts in a computer system was legally permissible, and the appellant's detailed record-keeping was deemed sufficient. Therefore, the ground for rejection based on improper accounts maintenance was considered invalid.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed except for the contested amount of Rs. 1,05,813, which was rejected. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in court.

---