TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 212
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which has rejected the application of the petitioner for refund and which subsequently came to be affirmed by the appellate authority in terms of its order dated 25 October 2023. The petitioner, consequently, seeks a refund of an amount of INR 16,10,541/- along with applicable statutory interest. 2. From the facts which stand disclosed in the writ petition, we find that the writ petitioner had during the year in consideration, effected three exports under Invoice Nos. E-129-EX, E-130-EX and E-131-EX. The date of realisation of export proceeds stand duly disclosed in paragraph 6 of the writ petition and which is reproduced hereinbelow:- "6. That during the year under consideration the Petitioner had conducted three transactions of exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w Cause Notice dated 04 August 2022 came to be issued proposing to reject that claim. The petitioner is stated to have furnished a reply on 13 August 2022 and whereafter on 23 November 2022, the respondents proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting its application for refund. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner approached the appellate authority which has chosen to affirm the order of 23 November 2022. As we view the order dated 25 October 2023 passed by the appellate authority, we find that before it all documentation including the eBRCs [Electronic Bank Realization Certificate] which were absent at the first stage of adjudication had been duly filed and submitted. The appellate authority, however, took the position that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant is eligible for export benefit (refund of ITC accumulated against export of goods) will remain unresolved. 8. Therefore, in view of the above, I am of the considered view that the adjudicating authority has rightly rejected the appellant's refund claim. The impugned order, rejecting the appellant's said refund claim is legal and maintainable in law and therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said impugned order. Accordingly, I pass the following order: ORDER 9. The appeal filed by M/s Elite International (Legal Name: Rohan Arora), 1060, Gali No. 15, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, North Delhi, Delhi 110005 against Order-In-Original No. ZL0711220251069 dated 23.11.2022 is hereby rejected and di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r country of Asian Clearing Union (ACU) or Nepal or Bhutan". Accordingly, it is clarified that the acceptance of LUT for supplies of goods to countries outside India Nepal or Bhutan or SEZ developer or SEZ unit will be permissible irrespective of whether the payments are made in Indian currency or convertible foreign exchange as long as they are in accordance with the applicable RBI guidelines. It may also be noted that the supply of services to SEZ developer or SEZ unit under LUT will also be permissible on the same lines. The supply of services, however, to Nepal or Bhutan will be deemed to be export of services only if the payment for such services is received by the supplier in convertible foreign exchange. 3.2 Amended....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e respondents themselves have rendered a clarification that if export proceeds against specific exports have been realised in Indian Rupees albeit routed through a freely convertible Vostro account of a non-resident bank situated in any country other than a member country of the Asian Clearing Union or Nepal and Bhutan, the refund would not be liable to be denied. 9. Before us, the respondents would contend that the aforesaid Circular alludes to "specific exports" and therefore, it is presently unclear as to whether the same would apply to all exports or to certain commodities and species of exports. It was thus submitted that since the Circular is being pressed in aid for the first time before this Court, at least this aspect should be ....