CENVAT credit refund denied for ITSS services without valid export order but allowed for other eligible services

CESTAT Chandigarh remanded the case to the Original Authority for reconsideration. The appellant was denied refund of CENVAT credit on ITSS services as no specific order from Singapore client existed during the relevant period, with later addendum insufficient to establish valid export order under Export of Service Rules, 2005. However, the appellant remained eligible for CENVAT credit refund on other services if applicable. The Tribunal held that CENVAT credit cannot be denied solely due to discrepancies between ST-3 Returns and CENVAT credit register, and credit availability depends on actual utilization of input services for export purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for claiming refund on ITSS Services rendered to M/s Agilent Technologies, Singapore.
2. Eligibility to avail CENVAT credit when the supplier of services pays service tax on a mistaken notion of law.
3. Denial of credit due to discrepancies between ST-3 Returns and CENVAT credit Register.

Summary:

1. Eligibility for claiming refund on ITSS Services:
The appellants contended that the services rendered should qualify as export under Rule 3 of the Export of Service Rules, 2005. The Tribunal found that M/s Agilent Technologies (International) Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Agilent Technologies, Singapore are independent entities and not commercial establishments of each other. However, the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner that no specific order was placed by M/s Agilent Technologies, Singapore for ITSS Services during the relevant period. The Tribunal concluded that the addendum and certificate issued after the relevant period cannot be construed as an order valid during the period in question. Despite this, the Tribunal held that refund cannot be denied without raising a demand for service tax on the appellants, citing the case of Black Rock Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.

2. Eligibility to avail CENVAT credit on service tax paid on the generator:
The Tribunal agreed with the appellants that credit cannot be denied if the supplier has paid service tax, even if it was not due. The Tribunal cited cases like CCE Pune vs. Ajinkya Enterprises, holding that once duty is paid, credit cannot be denied. The Tribunal dismissed the Department's argument that the principle is only applicable to excisable goods and not to service tax.

3. Denial of credit due to discrepancies between ST-3 Returns and CENVAT credit Register:
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not provide any findings on this issue. Citing the case of M/s Temenos India Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal held that non-disclosure of CENVAT credit in ST-3 returns alone is not a valid reason to deny credit. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Original Authority to verify if the services were used for export.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed by way of remand to the Original Authority with the following terms:
- The appellants did not meet the conditions of Proviso to Rule 3(1)(iii) of Export of Service Rules, 2005 for ITSS Services, but refund is admissible as no demand was raised.
- The Original Authority should verify and allow the refund of Rs.2,81,87,493/- for Business Support Services for the period October 2007 to March 2008 if found admissible.
- The appellants are eligible for CENVAT credit on the service tax paid on the generator.
- Refund is admissible despite discrepancies between CENVAT credit records and ST-3 Returns, provided the services were procured on payment of tax and used in the provision of exported services.

---