w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of S.T., Delhi

    Final Order No. A/50703/2017-ST(SM) in Application No. ST/Misc/51824/2016 in Appeal No. ST/52902/2016-SF(SM)

    Decided On, 07 February 2017

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: ARCHANA WADHWA
    By, MEMBER

    For Petitioner: Varun Gaba, Advocate And For Respondents: R.K. Mishra, DR



Judgment Text


1. The Miscellaneous Application is for early hearing of the appeal as the issue is recurring. After hearing both the sides, I find that a very short issue is involved and as such I proceed to decide the appeal itself.

2. The appellant is an exporter and is entitled to refund of credit in terms of the provision of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The refund filed by the appellant stands rejected by the authorities on the sole ground that e-BRCs i.e. Electronic Bank Reconciliation Certificate do not stand produced by them.

3. The appellant's contention is that the requirement of filing e-BRC was introduced by DGFT by notice dated 5-6-2012. Some of the banks have not updated their software and were still issuing manual BRCs. As the appellant have produced manual BRC the substantial requirement stands fulfilled by them. They have also drawn my attention to a letter by the Assistant Manager of the relevant Bank indicating that their systems are not programmed to issue e-BRCs for bank realization against service invoice and as such they are unable to issue e-BRC and they have issued manual BRCs.

4. The basic criteria for refund of credit is that the exporter had realized value of goods or services so exported by them for which purpose production of BRC is required. The requirement of filing e-BRC instead of manual BRC is only a procedural requirement and non-production of the same would not result in denial of benefit if otherwise available to the assessee.

5. As such I am of the view that the impugned order denying refund claim on the said sole ground is not justified. Accordingly the same are set aside and matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for examining the manual BRC issued by the banks and to re-decide the refund accordingly. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Miscellaneous application for early heari

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ng also gets disposed of. Since the appellant's refunds are involved, it is expected that the original adjudicating authority would complete the adjudication within a period of three months from today.
O R