Cenvat credit refund on input services and revised returns cannot be denied solely for procedural revision limits or bank verification issues.

Refund of Cenvat credit was treated as available where the disputed services had a direct nexus with the output service: brokerage for office premises, employee catering, travel, accommodation and restaurant es were all regarded as business-connected input services. Repeated filing of revised ST-3 returns was held not to be a standalone ground to reject refund, because the governing law contained no rule limiting revision to a single correction. The bank certificates supporting export realisation were accepted as relevant, but the adjudicating authority was directed to verify the banking evidence and export proceeds on remand.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the services used for obtaining office premises, employee catering, travel, accommodation and restaurant expenses qualified as input services for refund of Cenvat credit; (ii) whether filing revised ST-3 returns more than once could be a ground to deny refund; (iii) whether the refund claim required verification of bank certificates correlating export proceeds.

Issue (i): whether the services used for obtaining office premises, employee catering, travel, accommodation and restaurant expenses qualified as input services for refund of Cenvat credit.

Analysis: The services were held to have a direct nexus with the provision of output services. Brokerage for office premises was treated as necessary for carrying on the business of providing output services. Outdoor catering was treated as a facility enabling employees to work efficiently. Air travel, accommodation and restaurant services used by officials for export-related output services were also treated as sufficiently connected with the business activity.

Conclusion: The services qualified as input services and the refund could not be denied on that ground.

Issue (ii): whether filing revised ST-3 returns more than once could be a ground to deny refund.

Analysis: The governing finance law was held to contain no restriction that a return may be revised only once. Where correction of an error is needed, repeated revision of returns was treated as permissible, and the number of revisions by itself was held not to defeat a refund claim.

Conclusion: Multiple revised returns did not justify rejection of the refund claim.

Issue (iii): whether the refund claim required verification of bank certificates correlating export proceeds.

Analysis: The bank certificates produced by the claimant were accepted as relevant supporting material, but the authority was directed to verify whether the export payments had been realised through banking channels. If required, the authority was permitted to obtain confirmation directly from the bank.

Conclusion: The matter was remitted for verification of the bank certificates and export realisation details.

Final Conclusion: The denial of refund was set aside in principle, but the claim remained subject to limited verification of bank evidence by the adjudicating authority on remand.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund of Cenvat credit cannot be denied where the disputed services have a direct nexus with the output service, and procedural defects such as repeated return revisions do not by themselves bar the claim; only supporting bank evidence may be verified on remand.

---