Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful)

TaxTMI AI Drafter workflow from input facts to final legal draft Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2018 (2) TMI 1843

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate claim of Rs. 1,09,72,290/- for export of services in terms of Rules 5 of Export of Services Rules, 2005 read with Notification No. 11/2005-S.T., dated 19-4-2005. However, it was rejected by the original adjudicating authority for the reason that for no foreign exchange against export of services is received in this case and in addition out of the rebate claim of Rs. 1,09,72,290/- claim of Rs. 52,57,641/- is also time-barred as per Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. Their appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) also did not succeed and the applicant has filed the above Revision Application mainly on the following grounds - (a)    Convertible foreign exchange is received in India as the drawer bank (HSBC, Mauritiu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (iv)   Madhav Steel v. UOI - ALT-2010-350-HC. (v)    STI India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore - 2009 (236) E.L.T. 248 (M.P.). (vi)   Uttam Steels Ltd. v. Union of India - 2003 (158) E.L.T. 274 (Bom.). (vii)  CCE, Surat-1 v. Swagat Synthetics - 2008 (232) E.L.T. 413 (Guj.). (viii) CCE, Chennai v. Foxconn India Pvt. Ltd. - 2011-TIOL-68-CESTAT-MAD. (ix)   M/s. Global Energy Food Industries v. CCE, Ahmedabad - 2010-TIOL-337-CESTAT-AHM = 2010 (262) E.L.T. 627 (Tri.). 3. Personal hearing was offered on 15-12-2017 and 8-1-2018. But the applicant did not attend the personal hearing and no request for third date of hearing is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ely stated that Avigo (Mauritius) received the payment in foreign currency and then the amount in INR of export proceed is received in India through HSBC Bank, Mauritius. But from this version of the applicant it is manifest that payment in India for the exported service is received in Indian currency only and not in foreign currency. The adjudicating authority has expressly stated in his order that payment for export of service is not received in convertible foreign currency and the Commissioner (Appeals) has also arrived at a conclusion that payment for export of service is received in Indian currency and not convertible foreign currency. Thus, the claim of the applicant that payment is received in foreign currency is found without basis ....