2014 (8) TMI 671 - AT - Service Tax

Refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Information Technology Software Services - Held that - The ground no. (i), (ii) and (v) raised by Revenue in the appeals are to the effect that the value of taxable service exported does not tally with the figures shown in St-3 return. So far the above mentioned ground is concerned, the Revenue relies on the Order-in-Original but is unable to dispute the findings of the lower appellate authority and also the points urged in cross-objection field before the Tribunal. The next ground (iii) taken in the appeal is nexus is required to be proved of the input services used for services provided outside India, the same is required under condition No. 5 of Notification No. 5/2006. So far this ground is concerned, I find from the Order-in-Original that this was not the ground of rejection of refund, hence not sustainable. As the said finding of Commissioner (Appeals) has not been challenged, I hold that this ground is also not sustainable. No substantial question is raised vide ground Nos. (iv) & (vi) and the same stand rejected - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal allowing refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 after earlier rejection based on discrepancies in invoices and remittance details.

Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed against the Order-in-Appeal allowing a refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which was initially rejected due to discrepancies in invoices and remittance details. The appellant, engaged in providing taxable services, exported services related to Computer Software Services and claimed a refund under amended Rule 5. The rejection was primarily based on invoices being in different names from the remitter of foreign exchange and address discrepancies.

2. The appellant contended before the Commissioner that conditions for export of service were met, including services rendered from India and payment received in foreign exchange. The discrepancy in service receiver names and remitter of foreign exchange was clarified, explaining engagement of payment handlers abroad. Address discrepancies were explained by the appellant's previous corporate office location. Discrepancies in service values were justified as common business practice of settling invoices at reduced amounts after raising.

3. The Revenue raised grounds related to discrepancies in taxable service values exported and input services nexus for services provided abroad. However, the Tribunal found the Revenue unable to dispute lower appellate authority findings or the points raised in the cross-objection. The grounds regarding input services nexus and address discrepancies were not sustainable as per the Order-in-Original and the Commissioner's findings.

4. After considering the contentions, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, stating none of the grounds were allowable. The cross-objections filed by the respondent were allowed, directing the issuance of the refund within 30 days with interest as per rules. The judgment upheld the Order-in-Appeal granting the refund and rejected the Revenue's appeals.

Conclusion:
The judgment upheld the Order-in-Appeal granting the refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, after addressing and dismissing the Revenue's grounds of appeal related to discrepancies in invoices and remittance details. The Tribunal found in favor of the respondent, allowing the cross-objections and directing the refund issuance with interest.