Tribunal denies review due to missing FIRC, upholds Adjudicating Authority decision.

The Tribunal rejected the Misc. Application for Review of Order Mistake (ROM) filed by the applicant, as the appellant failed to provide a Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) confirming remittance in convertible foreign exchange, as mandated by the Export of Services Rules, 2005. Despite the applicant's arguments, the Tribunal upheld the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals), ultimately denying the request for a review based on a mistake apparent on the record.

---

---

Issues involved:
Misc. Application for Review of Order Mistake (ROM) in Final Order dated 16.02.2017

Analysis:
The applicant filed a Misc. Application for ROM in the Final Order dated 16.02.2017, contending that the Tribunal's order contained a mistake apparent on the record regarding the production of the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) by the applicant. The Tribunal reviewed the findings of the Adjudicating Authority, which indicated that the appellant received payments in Indian Rupees on exported services through a foreign bank, with FIRC issued by the bank. The Commissioner (Appeals) had examined a letter from the bank clarifying the receipt of foreign exchange and the eligibility for export of services. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to produce the FIRC certificate confirming the remittance as convertible foreign exchange, as required. The Tribunal cited a previous case where FIRCs were issued explicitly for foreign exchange, establishing the payment in convertible foreign exchange.

The applicant argued that they had indeed produced the FIRC certificate, disputing the Tribunal's assertion. However, the Tribunal reiterated the Commissioner (Appeals) findings that while it is allowed to receive the value of services in Indian Rupees, the Export of Services Rules, 2005 mandates payment in convertible foreign exchange. The Tribunal referenced a letter from the bank, which did not provide clear confirmation regarding foreign exchange, leading to the rejection of the applicant's claim of a mistake apparent on the record. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Misc. Application (ROM) filed by the applicant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the failure of the appellant to provide a FIRC certificate confirming the remittance as convertible foreign exchange, as required by the Export of Services Rules, 2005. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard, ultimately rejecting the applicant's claim for a review of the order based on a mistake apparent on the record.

---