This appeal has been filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 by M/s Drive Digital, F-2, Plot No. 167, Kardhani Scheme, Govindpura Kalwar Road, Jaipur (hereinafter also referred to as “the appellant”) against the Order-in-Original No.36/GST/ITC/DD/2019-20 dated 12.07.2019 (hereinafter called as the “impugned order”) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Division-B, Jaipur(hereinafter called as the “adjudication authority”).

2.  BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

2.1  The appellant having GSTIN No.08BLSPM87C3J1ZC has filed application for refund of IGST of ₹ 4,78,373/- for the month of August 2018 on account of Export of Service with payment of IGST, which has been rejected by the adjudicating authority due to non submission of BRC or Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates, required in case of Export of Services as per rule 89(2) (c) of the CGST Rules, 2017.

2.2  On scrutiny of documents submitted by the appellant, the adjudicating authority had noticed that the appellant has not submitted copy of FIRC (Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates). As per the rule 89(2) (c) of the CGST Rules, 2017 it is required that “a Statement containing the number and date of invoices and the relevant Bank Realization Certificate or Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates, as the case may be, in a case where the refund is on account of the export of services”. Accordingly, Form GST-RFD-08 (Notice for rejection of application for refund) was issued to the appellant and further after considering the defence submission, the application for refund was rejected and confirmed vide FORM-GST-RFD-06 dated 12.07.2019 by the adjudicating authority.

3.  Being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 12.07.2019, the appellant has filed the appeal on the following grounds which are summarized as under:-

• that because as per provisions of GST law end documents available on record your honor may appreciate that the impugned refund claim is admissible to the appellant and rejection of refund claim is pervasive and bad in the eye of law
• that because the adjudicating authority failed to appreciate the reply submitted by the appellant against the allegation leveled in the impugned notice.
• that because the appellant submitted Foreign Remittance Tax Invoice issued by the bank along with bank statement of relevant  period, by verifying the same your honor may appreciate that the condition of foreign inward has been very well complied with by the appellant.
• that because clause (iv) of Section 2(6) of IGST Act prescribes the condition for export of service as “the payment for such service has been received by the supplier of service in convertible foreign exchange” this condition has been compiled by the appellant hence substantive condition has been well fulfilled.
• that because RBI has already instructed for discontinuance of issuance of FIRC vide it’s circular issued in 2016. In this regard we are also enclosing herewith notice issued by the Foreign Exchange Dealers’ Association of India(FEDAI) mentioning about instructions of RBI.
• that because the basic purpose of FIRC is making assurance about remittance of foreign currency, which is crystal clear by the Foreign Remittance Tax Invoice issued by the bank therefore, substantial  compliance has been made by the  appellant and it is settled law that implementation of law must be  according to substantial compliance hence your honor may appreciate that refund amount is admissible to the appellant.
• that because, Circular No.37/11/2018-GST dated:15/03/2018 has been issued to clarify various issues in relation to processing of claims for refund. In para 15 of the circular it is stated that “it is also advised that refunds may not be withheld due to minor procedural lapse or non-substantive errors or omission”,
• that as much as in the present case there is no procedural lapse on the part of appellant hence your honor may appreciate that withholding refund claim due to non-substantive condition is not justified.
• that because the law abiding appellant is abide by law and therefore, instruction of RBI may not be overlooked.
• that because, it is also well settled law that provisions in relation  to procedural aspects should be given very liberal interpretation and that might be considered clarificatory in nature. Whereas, there is no dispute about admissibility of refund claim except some minor procedural issues which are not leading any irregularity about inward remittance hence refund may kindly be allowed.

The appellant has also placed reliance on the following decisions:-

• Mangalore Fertilizers & Chemicals V/s Deputy Commissioner 1991 (55) ELT 437 (SC)
• Commissioner. of C. Ex. & S.T., Raipur Versus Sat yarn Balaji Rice  Industries (P) Ltd. 2015 (39) S.T.R. 1004 (Tri. – Del.) and
• Commissioner of C. Ex., Pune -1 and Versus Fujitsu Consulting Pvt. Ltd.  2016 (41) S.T R. 728 (Tri. – Mumbai)
• SG Sales Corporation, Hon’ble Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Service Tax, Jaipur.

4.  Personal Hearing in the case was conducted on 13.08.2020. Shri Ravi Gupta, Chartered Accountant appeared on behalf of the appellant. He explained the case in detail and reiterated the submission already made in their appeal memorandum and submitted copy of foreign inward remittance certificate. He requested to decide the case at the earliest.

5.  I have carefully gone through the case records and submissions made in the appeal memorandum. find that the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claim amounting to ₹ 4,78,373/- filed by the appellant under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 for non submission of copy of FIRC (Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates).

6.  As per Rule 89(2) (c) of the CGST Rules, 2017- “a Statement containing the number and date of invoices and the relevant Bank Realization Certificate or Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates, as the case may be is required, in a case where the refund is on account of the export of services;

7. Further, Board has clarified the issue vide Para -12 and 14.2 of Circular No. 37/11/2018-GST dated 15.03.2018 which reads as under:-

 ’12. BRC/FIRC for export of goods : It is clarified that the realization of convertible foreign exchange is one of the conditions for export of services. In case of export of goods, realization of consideration  is not a pre-condition. In rule 89 (2) of the CGST Rules, a statement containing the number and date of invoices and the relevant Bank  Realisation Certificates (BRC) or Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRC) is required in case of export of services whereas, in case of export of goods, a statement containing the number and date of shipping bills or bills of export and the number and the date of the relevant export invoices  is required to be submitted along with the claim for refund. It is therefore clarified that insistence on proof of realization of export proceeds for processing of refund claims related to export of goods has not been envisaged in the law and should not be insisted upon.”

“14.2 A list of documents required for processing the various categories of refund claims on exports is provided in the Table below. Apart from the documents listed in the Table below, no other documents should be called for from the taxpayers, unless the same are not available with the officers electronically

Table

8. In the instant case, I find that the appellant has submitted a copy of Foreign Inward Remittance Statement issued by the ICICI Bank alongwith a copy of export Invoice No. 01 dated 18.08.2017 raised by the appellant. But no where in the statement details of invoice i.e. the number and date is mentioned vide which the statement can be co-related with the export of service made by the appellant. In the absence of the details of invoice in the statement it can not be ascertained that it pertains to the particular invoice. Hence, it can not be treated a valid FIRC (Foreign Inward Remittance Statement) which is required as per rule 89(2) (c) of CGST Rules, 2017. Thus, I do not find force in the contention of the appellant and do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 12.07.2019 passed by the adjudicating authority.

13. Thus, I reject the appeal filed by the appellant.