This appeal has been filed before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, by M/s Login Radius LLP, B-215, Nehru Nagar, Panipech, Jaipur- (Raj) ( Here in after also referred to as “the appellant”) against the Order in Original No. 06/IGST/Login Radius/2018-19 dated 09.05.2018 (Here in after called as the “impugned order”) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Division-B, Jaipur (Here in  after called as the “adjudication authority”).

2.  BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

2.1  The appellant filed refund application in RFD-01A on 22.01.2018 for refund of ₹ 6,34,628/- (August 2017) in respect refund of IGST paid on export of service. On examination, it was found that the refund claims were liable to be rejected on the various reasons; therefore Show Cause Notices dated 26.03.2018 was issued. After considering the submissions made by the appellant, the adjudicating authority vide the impugned order has rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellant has not submitted the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates.

3.  Being aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has filed the appeal mainly on following grounds;

3.1  They have submitted “certificate of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate” along with the Bank statement issued by their Banker i.e. “Standard Chartered Bank, Jaipur”. The said certificates and bank statement very well established that they had received foreign remittance against the export of service.

3.2  They had also requested to the adjudicating authority that their banker had not any  prescribed format of “foreign Remittance Certificate” and bank official submitted that, whatever certificate they have issued, the same is as per guidance and format provided by Reserve Bank of India. They provided the copy of remittance certificates but the adjudicating authority did not consider the same.

3.3  They were engaged in the export of service i.e Software Consultancy Service. They had exported service on payment of IGST and they had discharged the tax liability of IGST on export of service under Rule 89 to 97A of CGST Rules, 2017.

4.  Personal hearing in the matter was held on 22.01.19 wherein Shri Deepak Sharma, Advocate of the appellant appeared and explained the case in detail & submitted written submission dated 22.01.19 which is also almost repetition of their grounds of appeal and enclosed a detail chart of Bill raised and payment received with the submission. He has also requested to decide the case on the basis of facts available on records. In continuation of personal hearing. the appellant vide letter dated 04.02.2019 has also submitted that their banker has issued transaction certificate in respect of transaction involved in the appeal and has enclosed the same with the submission.

5.  I have carefully gone through the case records and submission made in the appeal memorandum as well as at the time of personal hearing. I find that the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellant did not submit the Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate for each transaction, but only submitted e-mail transaction with the bank issued by Standard Chartered Bank Jaipur. I observe that the appellant had exported the service on payment of IGST and claimed the refund of IGST paid on export of services. Rule 89(2) (c) of CGST Rules 2017 stipulates that the refund application shall be accompanied by the following documentary evidences;

(c) a statement containing the number and date of invoices and the relevant Bank Realisation Certificates or Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates, as the case may be, in a case where the refund is on account of the export of services;

Further CBEC vide para no. 12 of Circular no. 37/11/2018-GST dated 15.03.18 has also, clarified 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.

6.  From the clarification issued by the CBEC, it is ample clear that a’ statement containing the number and date of invoices and the relevant Bank Realization Certificates (BRC) or Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRC) is required in case of export of services. Though the appellant vide their submission dated 22.01.19 has now submitted the statement containing the number and date of invoices but they have not submitted the Bank Realization Certificates (BRC) or Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRC) in this regards. The appellant vide their letter dated 04.02.19 has submitted to this office the unsigned three inward payment customer advice dated 24.01.2019 issued by Standard Chartered. On perusal of these advices, I find that no references in respect of invoice no. are available. Besides it, in all these advices, in the Column of Remittance Amount, USD 100.00 only are mentioned whereas as per statement of invoice submitted by the appellant, invoice amount in USD 23250 is in one invoice and invoice amount USD 31850 is in the another invoice. Therefore, these inward payment customer advice dated 24.01.2019 issued by Standard Chartered can not be accepted as Bank Realisation Certificates (BRC) or Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRC).

7.  In view of the above, I reject the appeal filed by the appellant