Order date – 01 December 2022

 Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s. Sequoia Capital India Advisors Pvt. Ltd. is provider of Financial Investment Advisory Service to its overseas clients. The entire output services of the appellants were provided to their overseas clients and no part of the output services were provided to any client in India.
• Two refund claims were filed by the appellants for the period October, 2016 to December, 2016 and January, 2017 to March, 2017 and the refund claim was rejected partly on the ground that the appellants has failed to establish any nexus of the input services in issue with the export of service.
• Being aggrieve the appellant had filed an appeal.

Issue –

• Whether the authorities below have rightly rejected the refund claims in respect of the services exported out of India on the ground of being ineligible input services in terms of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 being no nexus with the output services?

Order –

• The Tribunal relied on the decision of this tribunal in the matter of BNP Paribas India Solution Pvt. Ltd. (supra) therein allowed the refund claim u/s. 5 ibid by holding that since the provisions of Rule 14 ibid have not been complied with, the refund of Cenvat credit as claimed by the Appellant under Rule 5 ibid cannot be denied.
• It is settled legal position that in absence of any notice for recovery as provided by Rule 14 ibid the refund claimed by the assessee under Rule 5 cannot be denied. The Tribunal relied on the decision of this tribunal in the matter of  Accelya Kale Solutions Ltd. and held that in such cases the nexus between the input service used in export of service should not be insisted upon.
• Hence in the view of the above judgments the impugned order is set aside. 
• The appeal is allowed.