TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 997
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claim for the period from April to December 2007. However, alleging that since the recipient of service, provided by the appellant is in India, it cannot be considered as Export of Service. Further, it is alleged that there was no correlation with the export invoices and the FIRCs. In appeal also, the rejection of refund claim was upheld. Aggrieved by said order, present appeal is filed. 2. When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned Chartered Accountant (CA) drew our attention to the show-cause notice dated 23.5.2008 and submits that there is no allegation in the show-cause notice regarding delay in submitting claim or as service provided by the appellant are not export. However, in the impugned order, it is rejected on such groun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judicating authority have no right to challenge the Export of Service as contemplated under Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The learned CA further referred to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of BT (India) Private Limited vs. Union of India & Anr.: 2023 (11) TMI 478 - Delhi High Court. 2.1 As regarding the relevant date and rejection of the claim on limitation, the learned CA drew our attention to the entry in the balance sheet and submits that as per the Notification No.27/2012 dated 18.6.2012-CE (N.T), the relevant date for computation of time limit will be end of the quarter for which FIRCs are received. The issue is also covered by the decision of Tribunal in the case of CCE & CST, Bengaluru vs. Span In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue Raised Clarification III For exporters, exporting to customer regularly, the foreign exchange remittance certificates (FIRC) are made on running account basis by the banks. Therefore, it is often not possible to show the linkage between the export invoice and the remittance. This has resulted in denial of refund. Further, in case where payments are received by cheque, banks do not issue FIRC and refunds are denied. In such cases, where FIRCs are issued on consolidated basis, the exporters should submit self-certified statement along with FIRC showing the details of export in respect of which the FIRC pertains. Refunds should be allowed on such certified statements. However, exporters should maintain a register showing running....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceedings initiated under Rule 14 of the Rules by seeking to deny the refund on the ground of the respondent/assessee availed cenvat credit on input services, which according to the appellant/revenue have no nexus with the output service. In our considered view, cannot be held to be justified." 6. With regard to the issue whether the services rendered by the appellant amounts to export of service, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of BT (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), observed that: "66. In our considered view, unless the self-assessed return, as submitted had been questioned, re-opened or re-assessed and the assertion of the petitioner of the services rendered by it qualifying as an 'export of service' questioned or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gn 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. .......... 13. Revenue has expressed the view that relevant date in the case of export of services may be adopted on the same lines as the amendment carried out in the Notification No. 27/2012, w.e.f. 1-3-2016. Essentially, after this amendment the relevant date is to be considered as the date of receipt of foreign exchange. While this proposition appears attractive, we are also persuaded to keep in view the observations of the Hon'ble ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed as not having been filed within the limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. While answering substantial questions of law (1), (3) & (4) hereinabove, we have already held that provisions of Section 11B of Central Excise Act would be applicable though Section 11B of the Act does not cover refund of Cenvat credit, Notification No. 5/2006 makes it explicitly clear that for the purpose of relevant date for computing one year prescribed under Section 11B, it has to be determined by applying Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, necessarily the refund claims ought to have been filed within one year from the relevant date as specified in Section 11B. In other words, time-limit has to be computed from the last date of th....