2014 (12) TMI 247 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of refund claim - export of services - claim refund of the service tax paid on various input services under rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - Services rendered by the appellant, namely, Business Auxiliary Service and Scientific and Technical Consultancy Service come under Rule 3(i) (iii) of the Export of Service Rules. To qualify as exports, two conditions are required to be satisfied, that is, such services should be provided from India and used outside India and the payments for the service is received in convertible foreign exchange. As regards the receipt of the payment in convertible foreign exchange, there is no dispute. As regards the first condition, when the service provider is located in India and the service recipient is located in abroad, use of the service rendered by the service provider is by the recipient located abroad and therefore, the services can said to be used outside India. Respondent herein undertakes only exports of services and is not rendering any services in India. Therefore, all the input services on which he has taken the credit is in relation to the exports made by him. Consequently the appellant would be eligible for refund of the input service tax paid under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for refund of service tax paid on input services under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Determination of whether services provided qualify as exports under Export Service Rules, 2005.
3. Discrepancy in invoices and nexus between input and output services for refund claims.

Issue 1: Eligibility for Refund of Service Tax Paid on Input Services:
The judgment involves two appeals, two stay petitions, and a cross objection stemming from an order allowing refund claims by M/s. Exxon Mobile Company India Pvt. Ltd. The lower appellate authority granted refunds amounting to Rs. 2,22,30,502/- for specific periods, disagreeing with the adjudicating authority's rejection of these refunds. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the services were provided in India, hence not eligible for refund. The Revenue also contested the correlation between input services and output services for the refund claim. The appellate tribunal held that the appellant qualified for the refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Issue 2: Determination of Whether Services Provided Qualify as Exports:
The case revolved around services provided by M/s. Exxon Mobile Co. India Pvt. Ltd. falling under "Scientific and Technical Services" and "Business Auxiliary Services" for foreign entities. The Revenue contended that since the services were conducted in India, they did not constitute exports. Conversely, the appellant argued that the conditions for exports were met, as payments were received in convertible foreign exchange and services were utilized outside India. Citing precedents and circulars, the tribunal found that the services were indeed exports, as the service provider was in India, but the service recipient was outside India. This met the conditions for export of services, making the appellant eligible for the refund.

Issue 3: Discrepancy in Invoices and Nexus Between Input and Output Services:
The Revenue raised concerns about discrepancies in invoices and the lack of a clear nexus between input and output services for the refund claims. However, the tribunal noted that the objection was related to claiming refund/rebate and not the entitlement to credit. Referring to previous judgments, the tribunal emphasized that eligibility for rebate should not be questioned if the credit was permitted to be taken. As the appellant undertook only exports of services and the input services were related to exports, the tribunal dismissed the Revenue's objection, affirming the appellant's entitlement to the refund.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, ruling in favor of M/s. Exxon Mobile Co. India Pvt. Ltd. The judgment clarified the eligibility criteria for refund claims under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and affirmed that the services provided qualified as exports under the Export Service Rules, 2005. The tribunal dismissed the Revenue's objections regarding discrepancies in invoices and the nexus between input and output services, emphasizing the appellant's entitlement to the refund.