2023 (5) TMI 83 - AT - Service Tax

Appeals allowed for remand with focus on input-output nexus and FIRC settlement

M/s. Micro Focus Software India Pvt Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru

The appeals were allowed by way of remand, directing the adjudicating authority to complete proceedings within three months. The focus was on establishing ... Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit - export of output services during the period October – December 2008; July – September 2009; July – September 2013 and October – December 2014 - failure to submit copy of CENVAT credit Register and duty-paid input invoices, category-wise CENVAT credit availed on input credit availed - receipt of FIRC through Indian rupees towards export proceeds and question of compliance with Rule 3(2)(b) of ESR, 2005 - HELD THAT:- There is merit in the submissions advanced by the learned AR that the said issue has attained finality after passing of the Order-in-Appeal No.1687 to 1688/2016 dt.25.11.2016 as no appeal has been preferred by the appellant on the said finding of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) before the appropriate forum. In the said remand Order, the original adjudicating authority was only directed to examine the evidence to ascertain the nexus between the input service and the export output service to determine the cash refund of accumulated credit - the same cannot be agitated again before this Tribunal while challenging the second Order passed by the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals). Failure to submit copy of CENVAT credit Register and duty-paid input invoices - HELD THAT:- Appellant submits that they can place all the records as and when directed by the Department to establish the nexus between the input services and export of output services and assist the department in clarifying the glaring calculation error while computing the refund claims - Learned AR for the Revenue has no objection in remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority. Considering the submissions of both sides, it is appropriate to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to consider all the relevant documents that are on record and that would be produced by the appellant during the course of adjudicating process to establish the nexus between the input services and export of output services, and calculation error in the computation of refund claims except the issue of realisation of FIRC through Indian currency, which has attained finality in the previous proceedings in Order-in-Appeal No.1687 to 1688/2016 dated 25.11.2016. Appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues Involved:The issues involved in the present appeals are: (i) Realisation of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) through Indian rupees; (ii) Evidences to establish nexus between the input services and export of output services; (iii) Glaring calculation mistakes in computing the refund claims.Realisation of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) through Indian Rupees:The appellant's appeal for refund of credit attributable to export services where foreign remittances were received in Indian Rupees was denied by the authorities. The issue of realisation of FIRC through Indian currency was deemed insufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 3(2)(b) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005. The appellant did not appeal against this observation, leading to finality on this matter.Evidences to Establish Nexus Between Input Services and Export of Output Services:The appellant submitted documents including CENVAT credit Register, sample invoices, and a write-up to establish the nexus between input services availed and export of output services. The authorities observed a lack of evidence in the de novo consideration, despite the appellant's claim that all necessary documents were provided earlier. The matter was remanded for further verification to ascertain the nexus.Glaring Calculation Mistakes in Computing Refund Claims:The appellant's appeal also raised concerns about calculation errors in computing the refund claims. The Revenue representative had no objection to remanding the matter for rectification of these errors. The Tribunal decided to remand the case to the adjudicating authority to consider all relevant documents and assist in clarifying the calculation errors. The issue of realisation of FIRC through Indian currency was deemed settled from previous proceedings.In conclusion, the appeals were allowed by way of remand, with the adjudicating authority directed to complete the proceedings within three months from the date of the order, focusing on establishing the nexus between input services and export of output services, and rectifying calculation errors, except for the issue regarding realisation of FIRC through Indian currency, which was considered final.