CENVAT refund under Rule 5 cannot be denied by reopening credit admissibility or demanding one-to-one correlation of services.

In refund proceedings under Rule 5, admissibility of CENVAT credit cannot be reopened for the first time where no prior proceedings were initiated under Rule 14 read with Section 73 to reverse or recover the credit. The refund framework is confined to verification of export of services and availability of credit, not a fresh adjudication on the correctness of credit already availed. Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit also cannot be denied for want of one-to-one correlation between input services and exported output services, or for absence of invoices from a foreign service provider, where tax was discharged under reverse charge and the supporting challans were accepted. The refund claim was therefore maintainable and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in refund proceedings under Rule 5, the admissibility of CENVAT credit can be disputed when no proceedings were initiated under Rule 14 read with Section 73 for reversal or recovery of the credit; (ii) Whether refund of accumulated CENVAT credit can be denied for want of one-to-one correlation between input services and exported output services or for absence of invoices from a foreign service provider.

Issue (i): Whether, in refund proceedings under Rule 5, the admissibility of CENVAT credit can be disputed when no proceedings were initiated under Rule 14 read with Section 73 for reversal or recovery of the credit.

Analysis: The refund claim was founded on accumulated credit already reflected in the books, and the Department had not earlier issued a notice invoking Rule 14 read with Section 73 to question or recover the credit. In that situation, the credit could not be treated as inadmissible for the first time at the refund stage. The refund framework under Rule 5 and the relevant notification requires verification of export of services and availability of credit, not a fresh adjudication on the correctness of credit availed.

Conclusion: The credit could not be denied in refund proceedings in the absence of prior proceedings under Rule 14 read with Section 73, and the claim was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether refund of accumulated CENVAT credit can be denied for want of one-to-one correlation between input services and exported output services or for absence of invoices from a foreign service provider.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that neither Rule 5 nor the notification required one-to-one correlation between each input service and each export output service. The foreign service provider was not bound by Rule 4A invoicing requirements, and the assessee had paid service tax on reverse charge through challans, which were accepted documents for availing credit. The Department's objections on nexus and documentation were therefore untenable.

Conclusion: Refund could not be refused on the grounds of lack of one-to-one correlation or absence of foreign invoices.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and the assessee was entitled to refund of the CENVAT credit with consequential relief as per law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where CENVAT credit has not been assailed through proceedings under the recovery provision, its admissibility cannot be reopened at the refund stage under Rule 5; refund of accumulated credit cannot be denied merely for absence of one-to-one correlation or foreign invoices when tax has been paid on reverse charge and credit is otherwise available.

---