CENVAT credit on export input services allowed where nexus and statutory definition were satisfied; address change alone did not bar credit.

Input services used for providing export output services were treated as eligible input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, so CENVAT credit and consequential refund under Rule 5 were allowed for the admissible services. The appellant agreed to reverse credit for specified excluded services, including Phonographic Performance, Testing of Food & Water Sample for Canteen, Video Projection Agency Service, and Rent-a-cab Service. A mere change in the registered office address did not disentitle credit on invoices addressed to the earlier office, so the remand for further verification on that point was held unnecessary and set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether service tax paid on the disputed input services qualified as admissible CENVAT credit and consequent refund of accumulated credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; (ii) whether remand was justified in respect of invoices addressed to the appellant's earlier registered office.

Issue (i): Whether service tax paid on the disputed input services qualified as admissible CENVAT credit and consequent refund of accumulated credit under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: The disputed services were examined in the light of the settled position that services used in providing export output services, and satisfying the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, are eligible for credit. The exceptions noted were Phonographic Performance, Testing of Food & Water Sample for Canteen, Video Projection Agency Service, and Rent-a-cab Service, for which the appellant agreed to reverse the credit.

Conclusion: The disputed input services, other than the excluded services, were held admissible to CENVAT credit, and the related refund claim was allowed accordingly.

Issue (ii): Whether remand was justified in respect of invoices addressed to the appellant's earlier registered office.

Analysis: The appellate authority had accepted that a mere change of address did not disentitle the appellant from availing credit, yet still remanded the matter for verification. That further remand was found unnecessary once the substantive objection on address change had been negated.

Conclusion: The remand was held unjustified and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were modified, the credit was upheld for the admissible services, the objection based on the earlier address was rejected, and the appeals succeeded only in part.

Ratio Decidendi: Where input services are shown to have nexus with the output services and satisfy the statutory definition of input service, CENVAT credit and consequential refund cannot be denied merely on technical objections such as a subsequent change in registered address.

---