Strict construction of refund notifications bars credit refund from unregistered premises, while limitation runs from foreign exchange realisation.

Refund of service tax credit for exported services was held to be unavailable where the output services were exported from an unregistered premises, because the refund notification required the claim to be filed before the jurisdictional authority over the registered premises and such fiscal benefit had to be strictly construed. The claimant therefore had to satisfy the mandatory registration condition, which was not met. In export of service cases, the relevant date for limitation was clarified as the date of realisation of foreign exchange. On that basis, the refund claims were found contrary to the governing notification requirements.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether refund of service tax credit could be granted when the output services were exported from an unregistered premises; and (ii) whether, for export of service cases, the date of realisation of foreign exchange was the relevant date for limitation.

Issue (i): whether refund of service tax credit could be granted when the output services were exported from an unregistered premises.

Analysis: The refund notification required the claim to be filed before the jurisdictional authority having control over the registered premises from which the output services were exported. Registration of the premises was therefore necessary to identify the proper jurisdictional authority. As a fiscal notification granting benefit, it had to be strictly construed, and the claimant had the burden to show that all conditions for refund were satisfied.

Conclusion: Refund was not admissible when the premises from which the services were exported was not registered, and the Revenue succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): whether, for export of service cases, the date of realisation of foreign exchange was the relevant date for limitation.

Analysis: The order recorded that the law had clarified the relevant date in export of service cases as the date of realisation of foreign exchange for the purpose of limitation.

Conclusion: The relevant date for limitation in export of service cases was the date of realisation of foreign exchange.

Final Conclusion: The refund claims were held to be contrary to the governing notification requirements, and the Revenue appeals were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund notification granting fiscal benefit must be strictly construed, and where registration of the service provider's premises is a condition for determining jurisdiction, refund cannot be granted if that mandatory condition is not met.

---