2017 (6) TMI 111 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - export of Information Technology Software Services for the period April 2008 to June 2008 - denial on the ground that they had not submitted bifurcated figures in respect of IT enabled services and the other services exported, non-registration for the exported services and also time barred - Held that - these services rendered by the appellant are export services as is clearly brought out in the softech form, APR, financial etc - Further the CA certificate submitted by the appellant also certified that the appellants have rendered export services and the consideration received by the appellant is only for export of services and further the declaration from service recipient that the services have been received from PA Consulting during the disputed period - the appellants are entitled for the refund as claimed by them - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on non-bifurcation of figures, non-registration for exported services, and being time-barred. Interpretation of expenses in invoices. Appellant's entitlement to cenvat credit and refund claim validity.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the dismissal of a refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to various reasons. The appellant, engaged in providing software development services under a contract with overseas entities, sought a refund under Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The refund was rejected for not providing bifurcated figures for exported services, non-registration for those services, and being time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the claim's time validity and ruled non-registration not a prerequisite for credit. However, the rejection was based on expenses in invoices not being adequately evidenced as related to service provision.

The consultant argued the rejection was contrary to law, emphasizing the expenses in question were part of the service agreement with overseas entities. Supporting documents included a CA certificate confirming service nature, a letter from the service recipient in the UK, and Foreign Inward Remittance Certificate (FIRC) entries. The AR defended the impugned order's findings.

Upon review, the Tribunal found the invoices adequately described expenses as part of service consideration, supported by CA certification, service recipient declaration, and other documents. The services were confirmed as exports, justifying the refund claim. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal allowed.

This judgment clarifies the eligibility criteria for cenvat credit refunds concerning exported services, emphasizing the importance of proper documentation and evidence to support refund claims. It underscores the significance of clear invoicing practices and supporting documentation to establish entitlement to refunds under relevant tax rules and notifications.