TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1346
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervice tax paid on various input services which are utilised for the services exported during the period 01/01/2011 to 31/03/2011 and 1/4/2011 to 30/6/2011, in terms of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules and Notification No.5/2006 CE NT Dt. 13/04/2006. The original authority has rejected the claims. Commissioner(Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No.174-175/2016 dt. 01/11/2016 upheld the order of the lower authorities on the ground that the portion of refund claim is barred by limitation as the refund claim was filed beyond the period of one year from the date of export; the refund claim was not supported by certain documents listed in para 5 of the notice; there is no nexus between input services on which credit was availed and the output service ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmits that the appellants were asked to submit original FIRC certificates and to provide correlation of FIRC with export invoices; the appellants requested for time vide letter dt. 2/08/2013; however, the Asst. Commissioner passed the order dt. 29/03/2013 rejecting the claim. He further submits that learned Commissioner(Appeals) has not discussed various case law cited by them which were binding on the appellate authority; therefore the principles of natural justice have been violated. The appellant submits that in terms of notification No.5/2006-CE NT dt. 14/03/2006 issued under Rule 5 of the CCR, requires to be interpreted holistically and not in bits and pieces; he submits that the notification provides for safeguards, conditions and lim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, even after adjustment of the same for payment of duty of excise or service tax. The conditions, safeguards and limitations for consideration of such refund claims have been spelt out by the Government through notifications. Notification No. 5/2006 (up to 17-6- 2012) and Notification No. 27/2012 (w.e.f. 18-6-2012) (as amended) has specified the conditions in this regard. These notifications specify that such refund claims are to be filed within the period specified in Section 11B. The relevant date specified under the above section leaves no room for doubt as far as export of goods is concerned. However as far as export of services is concerned, the various sub-sections specifying relevant date under Section 11B do not cover the case of e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l as the successor provisions i.e. the Export of Services Rules, 2005, we note that export of services is completed only with receipt of the consideration in foreign exchange. Consequently, the date of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) is definitely relevant. The Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the date of receipt of consideration may be taken as relevant date in the case of Hyundai Motors [2015 (39) S.T.R. 984 (A.P.)]. 12. The related question for consideration is whether the time limit is to be restricted to the date of FIRC or can be considered from the end of the quarter. The Tribunal in the case of Sitel India Ltd. (supra), has observed that the relevant date can be taken as the end of the quarter in which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cular states as follows: 3.2.1 Similar problem of co-relation and scrutiny of large number of documents was being faced in another scheme [Notification No. 41/2007- S.T., dated 6-10-2007] which grants refund of service tax paid on services used by an exporter after the goods have been removed from the factory. In Budget 2009, the scheme was simplified by making a provision of self-certification [Notification No. 17/2009-S.T.] whereunder an exporter or his Chartered Accountant is required to certify the invoices about the correlation and the nexus between the inputs/input services and the exports. The exporters are also advised to provide a duly certified list of invoices. The departmental officers are only required to make a basic scrutin....