TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 64
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... six appeals is identical and there is a common impugned order, therefore all the six appeals are being disposed of by this common order. The details of all the appeals are given herein below: Appeal No. ST/20599 /2018 ST/20600 /2018 ST/20601 /2018 ST/20602 /2018 ST/20603 /2018 ST/20604 /2018 O-I-A No. MLR-EXCUS-000-APP-061 to 066-17-18 O-I-O No. MLR-EXCUS-000-DUDP-ASC-GJU-038-16-17 MLR-EXCUS-000-DUDP-ASC-GJU-039-16-17 MLR-EXCUS-000-DUDP-ASC-GJU-040-16-17 MLR-EXCUS-000-DUDP-ASC-GJU-041-16-17 MLR-EXCUS-000-DUDP-ASC-GJU-086-16-17 MLR-EXCUS-000-DUDP-ASC-GJU-085-16-17 Period Oct 2014 to Dec 2014 Jan 2015 to March 2015 April 2015 to June 2015 June 2015 to Sep 2015 Oct 2015 to Dec ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claims were filed in time, as per the conditions for determining of time limit in terms of clause 3(b)(ii) of Notification No. 27/2012-CE (N.T) dated 18.06.2012., as the proofs of receipt of payments in convertible foreign exchange were not furnished and for the reason that the conditions relating to export of services in terms of Rule 6A of Service Tax Rules, 1994 were not satisfied as the foreign inward remittance certificates for the said transactions were not submitted and also for not producing bank realization certificate as per the requirement of para 3(d) of Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) dated 18.06.2012 and for non-correlation of the same with the bank account statements submitted. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i - 2016 (41) S.T.R. 34 (Mad.). He also relied upon various decisions wherein the receipt was in Indian currency and it was held to be receipt in convertible foreign exchange and the benefit of export of service was granted. Following are such decisions: a. Sun Area Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. V. Commissioner - 2015 (39) S.T.R. 897 (Tri.) b. Commissioner V. Balaji Telefilms Ltd. - 2016 (43) S.T.R. 98 (Tri.) c. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2017 (5) GSTL 321 (Tri.) d. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot V. Shelpan Exports - 2010 (19) S.T.R. 337 (Tri.-Ahmd.) e. National Engineering Industries Ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur - 2008 (11) S.T.R. 156 (Tri.-Del.) f. Nipuna Services Ltd. V. Comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T.R. 897 (Tri.-Mumbai) d. Commr. of GST, Mumbai Central Vs. Everstone Capital Advisors Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 (12) G.S.T.L. 328 (Tri.-Mumbai) e. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-II - 2017 (5) G.S.T.L. 321 (Tri.-Del.) 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record and the various decisions relied upon by both sides, I find that the refund has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the appellants have not submitted Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate for the said transaction and they have also not produced the invoices, bills or challans raised in respect of exports and also received money in Indian rupee in his ICICI Bank account. Further I find th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r in which the FIRC is received, in cases where the refund claims are filed on a quarterly basis." 6.1. Further I find that the appellant has produced before me non-objection certificate for issuance of FIRC issued by Indus Inc Bank wherein remittance had been confirmed and all details regarding the remitter name, beneficiary name and purpose of remittance have been given. But these documents were not made available before both the authorities below. Therefore, both the authorities have held that appellants have not produced any credible evidence to establish that they have received the payment in convertible foreign exchange. Further I find that the appellants have also produced a certificate issued by the appellants' ICICI Bank dated 0....