Export of service and rebate claims hinge on recipient location, foreign exchange receipt, and notice-bound adjudication.

Marketing support services rendered to foreign entities were treated as export of service under the Export of Service Rules, 2005 because the recipient was outside India and payment was received in convertible foreign exchange; the location of the foreign recipient's customers or end-use of goods was not decisive. A rebate claim could not be rejected on alleged ineligible Cenvat credit where that basis was not pleaded in the show-cause notice, as denial cannot travel beyond the scope of the notice. The rebate claim was nevertheless sent back for limited verification of the correlation between export invoices and FIRC copies before final relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the marketing support services rendered to foreign entities constituted export of service under the Export of Service Rules, 2005; (ii) whether denial of rebate on the ground of ineligible Cenvat credit could be sustained when that basis was not set out in the show-cause notice; (iii) whether the rebate claim required remand for verification of export invoices and FIRC copies.

Issue (i): Whether the marketing support services rendered to foreign entities constituted export of service under the Export of Service Rules, 2005.

Analysis: The services were rendered to foreign entities located outside India and consideration was received in convertible foreign exchange. The relevant test under the Export of Service Rules, 2005 is the location of the service recipient and the receipt of payment in foreign exchange, not the place where the customers of the foreign recipient are situated or where the ultimate goods were consumed. The amended rule position during the disputed period did not alter that legal position in a manner adverse to the claim.

Conclusion: The services qualified as export of service, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of rebate on the ground of ineligible Cenvat credit could be sustained when that basis was not set out in the show-cause notice.

Analysis: The rejection was also founded on alleged ineligibility of credit, but the show-cause notices did not allege irregular availment of Cenvat credit as the basis for denial. A rebate claim cannot be rejected on a ground that travels beyond the notice and is outside the scope of the proceedings initiated.

Conclusion: The denial on that ground was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the rebate claim required remand for verification of export invoices and FIRC copies.

Analysis: Although the claim succeeded on the substantive issues, the record showed that correlation of export invoices with FIRC copies still needed verification. Limited factual verification was therefore necessary to examine the supporting documents for the relevant rebate claims.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for verification of the relevant documents.

Final Conclusion: The substantive objections to the rebate claim were rejected, but the claim was sent back only for limited verification of documentary correlation before final grant of relief.

Ratio Decidendi: For export of service, the decisive factors are the location of the recipient and receipt of consideration in convertible foreign exchange, and a rebate claim cannot be denied on a ground not stated in the show-cause notice.

---