? Refund — Accumulated CENVAT credit — Not pertaining to the month of exports — Held, refund of credits pertaining to past periods can be allowed in subsequent months. ? Eligible documents — Input service invoices raised on head office — Held, credit can be allowed if the services received by the assessee. ? Ineligible documents — Photocopies of invoices, invoices not containing name of the assessee — Credit cannot be allowed. ? Eligible documents — Documents in the name of another entity but o<

The respondent was a 100% EOU engaged in the exports of silk fabrics. Most of their production was exported and therefore, the respondent was not able to utilise the accumulated credits and they filed refund claim for such credits under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). The Department rejected the claim since the claim pertained to credits for the input services which had not been used in goods actually exported, while relying on certain Tribunal decisions in Ace Techniks v. Commissioner, (2009) ELT 92 (T). Moreover, certain credit was denied on input service invoices which were raised on head office or where only photocopies of invoices were available or where the invoices were not in the name of the respondent. The respondent argued that in view of CBEC Circular dated 19-1-2010 and the respondent’s own case reported in (2010) 20 STR 219 (Tri.-Bang.), the credit pertaining to a period can be claimed in the subsequent period.

Held:

Quoting Para 3.3 of CBEC Circular dated 19-1-2010, the Tribunal held that there is no bar on refund for the credits pertaining to the input services availed in the previous period. It was also observed that the case of Ace Techniks cited by the Revenue was in relation to inputs and not input services and therefore, not applicable to this case. Regarding eligible documents the Tribunal held as under:

• Input service invoices raised on head office — held, credit can be allowed if the services are received by the respondent and the respondent can satisfy the authorities that the services have been received by them.
•  Photocopies of invoices, invoices not containing name of the assessee — held, such documents are not eligible documents.
•  Documents in the name of another entity but on account of the assessee — held, credit cannot be denied on such invoices in view of the Tribunal’s decision in the case of the respondent’s own case reported in (2010) 20 STR 219 (Tri.-Bang.).