Order Date – 13 September 2023

Parties: M/s Bechtel India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi

Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s Bechtel India Private Limited, is providing services under the category of consulting Engineer's Service. The appellant filed 12 refund claims for unutilized CENVAT Credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No.5/2006-CE(NT) dated 14.3.2006.
• The adjudicating authority vide the impugned order partly sanctioned the refund and rejected the rest. The ground on which the refund was rejected are (i) input service invoices received at the premises not registered with the service tax authorities, (ii) input services have  no nexus with output services, (iii) incomplete invoices and (iv) input services which are utilised  for providing output service to foreign affiliates in relation to projects in India

Issue –

• Whether the appellant entitled to refund for unutilized CENVAT Credit?

Order –

• The Tribunal, regarding the rejection of refund on the ground that input service invoices received at the premises not registered with the  service tax authorities, observed that the judgement of  Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Service  Tax-III, Chennai vs. CESTAT, Chennai wherein the Hon’ble High Court after considering the various rules and the notification No. 5/2006-CE NT dated 14.03.2006 has come to the  conclusion that registration of the premises is not a pre-condition for  grant of refund. Hence it was held that denial of refund on this ground is not justified.
• Regarding the rejection of refund on the ground that the input services have no nexus with output services, it was held that the cenvat credit on input services are in fact relating the business activity of the appellant and are covered by the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 and the appellant has rightly claimed the cenvat credit.
• The rejection of refund on the ground that the invoice was incomplete it was noticed that the supplier has issued a certificate admitting its mistake and certifying that the invoices were issued against provision of rent-a-cab service to the Appellant. Further with regard to other invoices issued by other vendors, the appellant’s name has been mentioned, and only address is not mentioned. Hence held that the rejection of refund on the ground of not filing the original invoices is not justified.
• With regard to input services which are utilised for providing output service to foreign affiliates in relation to projects  in India it was found that the  requirement of Rule 3(2) of the export of the services stood satisfied  as the services were provided by the appellant from India and the  recipient of the services are located outside India and were used by  the foreign affiliates located outside India satisfying the condition of  Rule 3(1)(iii) of export rules.
• Moreover, the Circular No. 111/05/2009- ST dated 24.02.2009 has clarified that the phrase ‘used outside India’  is to be interpreted to mean that the benefit of the service should  accrue outside India. Therefore, the denial of refund on this ground is also bad in  law.
• The Appeal is allowed.