TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 765
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, Management Consultants, Business Auxiliary Services, Transport of goods by road, Advertising Space or Time Legal Consultancy Service'. They filed a refund claim on 24.08.2011 claiming refund of Rs.10,92,185/- under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On scrutiny of the claim, it was observed that some part of the claim pertains to different Division of the Commissionerate and accordingly, the claim was returned to the appellants on 05.09.2011. The revised claim for Rs.4,52,840/- for the period 01.10.2010 to 31.03.2011 was received in the office of the Asst. CCE on 18.11.2011. On scrutiny of the refund claim, it was found by the original authority that the appellants have not fulfilled the conditions of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om which the total amount received in foreign exchange comes to Rs.3,12,495/- during the relevant period of the refund claim. Therefore, this contention of the Revenue is not sustainable. He further submits that Revenue also rejected the claim on the ground that value of export services is much less as compared to the total credit availed by them during the relevant period. He submits that under the Notification, the formula is prescribed for claiming refund under Rule 5, according to which the ratio of export turnover to total turnover is multiplied by the CENVAT credit the amount for eligibility of refund. He submits that according to this formula only they have claimed the refund and amount in question is calculated on the basis of this ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No.5/2006-CE dated 14.03.2006 has been issued under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules providing the various conditions and safeguards in respect of such refund claim. Under this Notification, the refund is admissible when the output service is exported in accordance with procedure laid down under Export of Services Rules, 2005. The export is complete when the foreign exchange remittances are received in India. Therefore, the Revenue has raised the issue of non-realisation of foreign exchange in respect of the services on which refund has been claimed by the appellants. I find that the appellants have produced a certificate from the bank, i.e., Bank Realisation Certificate for the whole financial year 01.04.2010 to 22.03.2011. In this case, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is governed by the conditions and safeguards under Notification No.5/2006-CE dated 14.03.2006 and the denial of refund to the appellants in cited cases may not be on the same ground in each refund as in the present case. In the case of Dilieep Industries Ltd., supra, it is not clear on what ground the refund was denied by the lower authorities and in the case of Capiq Engineering Pvt. Ltd., the assessee was 100% EOU which fact is not applicable in the present case and the credit was denied on the ground that some of the services were not used in a particular quarter in respect of which the refund was claimed. Therefore, the facts of these cases are distinguishable from the present case as in ....