Rule 5 refund under Cenvat Credit Rules cannot be denied for procedural invoice defects when service receipt and tax payment are established.

Refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be denied on a purely procedural objection that input service invoices bear the head office address instead of the unit address, where receipt and use of the services and tax payment are undisputed. Where invoices do not clearly describe the services, refund is not automatically barred, but the claimant may be required to produce supporting evidence to verify whether the services qualify as input services, justifying remand for fresh examination. Overseas group services described as Business Support Service were treated as established and, with tax paid under reverse charge, credit and consequential refund were held admissible.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 could be denied merely because the input service invoices bore the address of the head office and not the unit address; (ii) whether refund could be denied where invoices did not mention the description of the services and the nature of the services required verification; (iii) whether refund was admissible in respect of overseas group services described as Business Support Service and subjected to tax under reverse charge.

Issue (i): Whether refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 could be denied merely because the input service invoices bore the address of the head office and not the unit address.

Analysis: The receipt and use of the input services, as well as payment of tax, were not disputed. In such circumstances, denial of refund only because the invoices carried the head office address was treated as a procedural objection. The issue had already been settled by prior Tribunal decisions, and the lower authority was expected to follow that settled position.

Conclusion: The denial on this ground was unsustainable and the assessee was held entitled to refund of the concerned amount.

Issue (ii): Whether refund could be denied where invoices did not mention the description of the services and the nature of the services required verification.

Analysis: Although the absence of service description in the invoices was not, by itself, treated as a complete legal bar, the record did not permit immediate verification of whether the services qualified as input services. The matter therefore required an opportunity to produce supporting evidence and establish the nature of the services received.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for fresh verification and decision.

Issue (iii): Whether refund was admissible in respect of overseas group services described as Business Support Service and subjected to tax under reverse charge.

Analysis: The invoices described the services as Business Support Service, and the factual finding that the services were unspecified was found incorrect. It was also accepted that service tax had been paid on reverse charge basis. On those facts, the assessee's entitlement to credit and consequential refund under Rule 5 stood established.

Conclusion: The rejection on this ground was set aside and refund was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part on merits, with one disallowance set aside, one rejection removed as unsustainable, and one part sent back for reconsideration on evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be denied on mere procedural defects in invoices when receipt of input services, tax payment, and use in providing output services are established, though factual ambiguity about the nature of services may justify remand for verification.

---