CENVAT credit refund for exported services allowed where invoices, annexures and foreign exchange realization proved the export transaction.

Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit could not be denied merely because export invoices did not use a particular service description, where the assessee was registered for the relevant output services, the invoices and supporting annexures identified the project and recipient details, and foreign exchange realization confirmed export of services. The record was sufficient to establish export status, and the Tribunal also noted that refund had been sanctioned on identical facts for a later month. The rejection was set aside and refund was allowed in principle, with the matter remitted only for fresh quantification of the refundable amount.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of unutilized CENVAT credit on the footing that the services rendered were exported services under the relevant export rules and whether the invoices and supporting records were sufficient to establish such export.

Analysis: The appellant was registered for service tax under Business Auxiliary Services and Information Technology Software Services and was also registered with export-oriented technology park authorities. The invoices showed project details, recipient details, project codes and supporting annexures, and foreign exchange was received against the invoices. The rejection below rested mainly on the view that the invoices did not expressly describe the services as BAS or ITSS and therefore did not evidence export of output services. The Tribunal held that once the assessee was registered as a provider of taxable output services and the record showed receipt of foreign exchange and service export activity, the department could not deny export status merely because the invoices were not drafted in the precise form preferred by the lower authorities. It further held that the lower authorities had not correctly appreciated the material on record and that the earlier sanction of refund on identical facts for a subsequent month supported the assessee's claim, though the exact refund amount required re-quantification.

Conclusion: The appellant was held eligible for refund of the unutilized CENVAT credit, and the matter was remitted only for re-quantification of the refundable amount before sanction.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection was set aside and refund relief was granted in principle in favour of the assessee, subject to fresh quantification by the lower authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund of unutilized CENVAT credit cannot be denied merely because export invoices do not use a particular service description, where the assessee is registered for the relevant output services, the invoices and annexures substantiate the export transaction, and foreign exchange realization confirms export of services.

---