Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Relx India Private Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Goods & Service ... on 17 February, 2026
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT No. III
Service Tax Appeal Nos. 42200 and 42201 of 2015
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos. 144&145/2015 (STA-I) dated 27.07.2015 passed by
the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-I), Newry Towers, 2054/1, 12th Main Road,
Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040)
M/s. RELX India Private Limited ...Appellant
International Tech Park,
Crest-12th Floor, Unit 2,3 and 4,
Taramani Road,
Chennai - 600 113.
Versus
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise ...Respondent
Chennai Outer Commissionerate, Newry Towers, No. 2054/1, II Avenue, 12th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040.
APPEARANCE:
For the Appellant : Mr. J. Krishna Kumar, Consultant For the Respondent : Mr. M. Selvakumar, Authorized Representative CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) DATE OF HEARING : 02.12.2025 DATE OF DECISION : 17.02.2026 FINAL ORDER Nos. 40221-40222 / 2026 Order:-
Brief facts are that the appellant M/s. RELX India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Reed Elsevier India Pvt. Ltd.) (hereinafter referred to as "RELX" or "the Appellant") was registered with the Service Tax Department under the category of "Business Support Service (BSS)", "Business Auxiliary Service (BAS)", & "Information Technology Software 2 Services (ITSS)" bearing registration number AAACR4727JSD004.
2. The Appellant is engaged in exporting services of quality assurance book /journal datasets, contents engineering, multimedia production, production quality control etc. Their entire business is done through exports and there are no domestic sales during the period under dispute.
3. Appellant was having a centralized accounting system. The export proceeds were received in the Bank Account of the appellant held with the Citi Bank for Chennai operations. In such a bank account, the address of the account holder contained the address of the Delhi Office of the appellant.
Show Cause Dated 17.08.2011 Dated 22.07.2011 Notice Refund Claim INR 29,60,879/- INR 30,13,451/-
Rejected
Periods Involved April 2010 - September October 2009 - March
2010 2010
Order-in-Originals Order-in-Original No. Order-in-Original No.
under dispute 113/2011 (hereinafter 114/2011 (hereinafter
referred to as "OIO 1") referred to as "OIO 2")
Order-in-Appeal Order-in-Appeal No. Order-in-Appeal No.
under dispute 144 & 145/2015(STA-I) 144 & 145/2015 (STA-
(common for Appeal 1 I) (Common for Appeal
and 2) (hereinafter 1 and 2) (hereinafter
referred to as referred to as
'Impugned OIA" "impugned OIA")
Appeal number ST/42200/2015 ST/42201/2015
3
with CESTAT (hereinafter referred to (hereinafter referred to
as "Appeal 1") as "Appeal 2")
4.1 The Appellants were issued with a Show cause
Notice No.25 dated 22.07.2011 for the period October 2009 to March 2010. The appellant had filed a refund claim on 30.09.2010 for Rs.30,13,451/- under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the amount being the input service tax credit taken during the month of October 2009 to March 2010. They have stated that they have exported Science & Medical, Legal, Education and Business-to Business industry sectors they provide information solutions to professional end users, and publishing more than 15,000 different journals, books and reference works, as well as more than 500 online information services and organized more than 430 trade exhibitions for customers in North America and Europe. 4.2 In support of their claim, they have enclosed copies of foreign remittance certificates, copies of input services invoices based on which they have taken credit and copies of export invoices. They have exported Information solutions to their customers located in North America and Europe. The Appellants had filed the refund claim under Rule 4 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Service Tax Rules, 1994. 4.3 The case of the department is that on verification of the Refund Claim, Invoices/ FIRCs/Input invoices under which they have taken credit and applied for refund, it was found that the appellant has applied for the input services viz., Rent, consultancy service, facility Management, Courier, Rent-a-cab, Outdoor catering etc. The appellant has submitted the Export invoices No. from EL- 2009/10-05, EL- 2009/11-09, EL-2009/12-09, EL 2009/12-15, EL-2009/12-16, EL-2009/01-01, EL-2009/02-04, EL-2009/03-0 for the period Oct 09 to Mar'10.
4.4 From the FIRC's submitted by the appellant, it was noticed that the payment of their service income mentioned in the FIRCs are in the name of M/s. REED Information Service, Delhi, and the amount is received in Indian currency and not in convertible foreign currency. 4.5 Further vide office letter C.No. IV/16/492/2010 Gr-II RF dated 23.12.2010, the appellant was asked to 5 explain receipt of export income in INR. In their replies dated 01.03.2011 and 25.05.2011, the appellant stated that M/s. Reed Elsevier India Pvt. Ltd. is a registered branch of M/s. Reed Information Services, with centralized accounts at Delhi, and that invoices were raised from Delhi while payments were received in INR in a Citibank Chennai account. Relying on the Export of Service Rules and Section 2(n) of the FEMA Act, 1999, the appellant contended that receipt in INR qualifies as convertible foreign exchange.
4.6 However, the Citibank letter dated 26.05.2011 has not evidenced the receipt of export proceeds in convertible foreign exchange from outside India, either by the Delhi head office or branch, and only confirms an INR account for the Chennai branch. Further, vide office letter dated 20.05.2011, the appellant was directed to produce documentary evidence showing realization of the entire export turnover in foreign currency/convertible foreign exchange, which was not complied with.
4.7 The SCN dated 22.07.2011 further stated by concluding that the consideration for the services in question was received in Indian Rupees, as reflected in the FIRCs 6 submitted by the appellant. As Indian Rupees do not qualify as convertible foreign exchange, the essential requirement under Rule 3(2)(b) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005, remains unmet. Accordingly, the services cannot be regarded as exports, and the refund claimed by the appellant is not admissible.
5.1 Thereafter another Show Cause Notice was issued dated 17.08.2011 which is on similar lines but for the period from April 2010 to September 2010. The appellant had filed a refund claim on 25/03/2011 for Rs.29,60,879/- under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the amount being the input service tax credit taken during the month of April 2010 to September 2010.
5.2 After due process of law, the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai passed Order-in- Original No. 113/2011 pertaining to Show cause notice dated 17/08/2011 & Order-in-Original No. 114/2011 dated 13.06.2012 pertaining to Show Cause Notice dated 22.07.2011 confirming the contents of the respective Show cause notices that the appellant has not satisfied the conditions prescribed under Rule 3(2)(b) of Export of Service 7 Rules, 2005 and accordingly, the refund claims of Rs.29,60,879/- and Rs.30,13,451/- filed by the appellant were held to be inadmissible.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). However, who vide Order-in-Appeal No. 144 & 145/2015 dated 27.07.2015, being the impugned order herein, upheld the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority.
7. Being further aggrieved, appeals are filed before this Tribunal in appeal Nos. ST/42200/2015 and ST/42201/2015 stating that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner Appeals is erroneous in law and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant and hence has been prayed to set aside the same.
8. The Appellant in this regard had submitted the following: -
8.1 That the Condition of Rule 3(2)(b) of Export of Services Rules 2005 is satisfied in their case. 8
"Customers located outside India remit the consideration for the services received in the following manner. i. Customers initially remit the consideration to the foreign banker and instructs to remit the same to the Appellant bank account located in India.
ii. Customer Banker will remit such consideration to their Indian Banker (i.e. Vostro account) in foreign exchange and instructs to remit the consideration to Appellant Bank Account located in India.
iii. Then Indian Banker of Foreign Bank will remit the consideration received in foreign currency to the Appellant's bank account in India currency. iv. Thus the Appellant's banker will issue the Bank Realization Certificate ('BRC) denominated in Indian currency, though the actual remittance for the exports made were realized in foreign currency."
8.2 Further the appellants place their reliance on the Master Circular No.14/2013-14 dated 1st July 2013 issued by RBI which states that on Export of Goods and Services, there is no restriction on Invoicing of export contracts in Indian Rupees in terms of the Rules, Regulations, Notifications and Directions framed under the Foreign Exchange Management Act 1999. Further, in terms of Para 2.40 of the Foreign Trade Policy (August 27, 2009 March 31, 2014), 9 "All export contracts and invoices shall be denominated either in freely convertible currency or in Indian Rupees but export proceeds shall be realized in freely convertible currency. However, export proceeds against specific exports may also be realized in rupees provided it is through a freely convertible Vostro account of a non-resident bank situated in any country, other than a member country of the ACU or Nepal or Bhutan"
8.3 Further the appellants submitted that under the Foreign Trade Policy and the Foreign Exchange Management framework, export proceeds realized in Indian Rupees through a freely convertible Vostro account of a non- resident bank, against remittance of free foreign currency by the overseas buyer, are deemed to be realization of foreign exchange. In the present case, the consideration for export services, though credited in INR, was received through authorised banking channels, supported by FIRCs issued by Citi Bank certifying that the remittance was not in non-convertible rupees. In view of the RBI Exchange Control Manual and FEMA Notifications, such receipts are to be treated as realization in convertible foreign exchange. Accordingly, the condition under Rule 3(2)(b) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 stands satisfied, and the appellant is entitled to the refund of service tax.10
8.4 The appellant has placed reliance on the case of Sun Real Estate Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Mumbai 2015-TIOL-956-CESTAT-MUM wherein the Tribunal considered whether receipt of consideration in Indian rupees, supported by Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs), satisfies the requirement of "receipt in convertible foreign exchange" under Rule 3(2) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005. It was not disputed that the appellant received payment in Indian rupees through Deutsche Bank and that FIRCs were issued by the authorised dealer. The Tribunal held that FIRCs are issued only in respect of foreign exchange and, in the present case, expressly certified that the amounts were not received in non-convertible rupees. Relying on Notifications issued under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, particularly FEMA Notification No. 9/2000-RB and FEMA Notification No. 14/2000-RB, the Tribunal observed that receipt of payment in Indian rupees from the account of a bank situated outside India and maintained with an authorised dealer is deemed to be repatriation of realised foreign exchange. Consequently, such receipt is to be treated as receipt in convertible foreign exchange. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that mere receipt of consideration in Indian currency does not disentitle an assessee from export benefits when the remittance originates from abroad through 11 authorised banking channels and is evidenced by FIRCs. The condition prescribed under Rule 3(2) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005 was therefore held to be satisfied. The Tribunal further held that security services and air travel services having a direct nexus with export of services qualify as input services. The appeal was allowed, except to the extent of the amount already held admissible by the lower authority. 8.5 The Appellant further relied upon the following cases: -
The Tribunal has consistently held that receipt of consideration in Indian Rupees does not, by itself, disentitle an assessee from export benefits when the underlying remittance originates in convertible foreign exchange. In Kishore Kumar & Co. (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mangalore [2011 (22) STR 57 (Tri-Bang.)], it was held that the essential condition of export of service stood satisfied where payment was received in foreign currency but credited in Indian Rupees by the Indian bank, leading to waiver of pre-deposit and penalty.
Similarly, in Nipuna Services Ltd. v. CCE, Customs & Service Tax (Appeals-II), Hyderabad [2009 (19) STT 263 (Tri.- Bang.)], the Tribunal held that denial of refund merely 12 because consideration was received in INR, though remitted out of convertible foreign exchange, would violate the fundamental principle that exports should not be taxed, and accordingly allowed the refund of CENVAT credit. Further, in Pam Pharma & Allied Machinery Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CST, Mumbai [2015 (37) STR 958 (Tri.-Mumbai)], the Tribunal reiterated that receipt of consideration in INR on behalf of a foreign service recipient does not negate export of service and upheld the assessee's entitlement to refund. These decisions affirm that realization of export proceeds in INR through authorised banking channels, backed by foreign exchange remittance, satisfies the requirement of receipt in convertible foreign exchange.
8.6 Further the appellants stated that the finding of the Learned Commissioner that the FIRCs are not addressed to the appellant exporting services from Chennai is erroneous.
The appellant operates a centralized accounting system, pursuant to which export proceeds are remitted to the Delhi bank account. Notwithstanding this, the FIRCs themselves clearly certify that the remittance pertains to "Chennai OPS Elsevier India," thereby establishing that the consideration was received in respect of services rendered by the Chennai 13 division. Merely because the FIRCs are addressed in the name of M/s. Reed Information Service Tele-direct, New Delhi, the export character of the services cannot be denied. Further, Rule 3(2) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 requires receipt of consideration in convertible foreign exchange and does not mandate that such receipt must be in the bank account of the service-providing unit. Accordingly, receipt of export proceeds in a centralized bank account cannot be a valid ground for denial of refund. The existence of a separate bank account at Chennai is also irrelevant for the purposes of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and the refund cannot be denied merely on the basis that the remittance was credited to the Delhi bank account.
9. The Appellants had placed reliance on the following decisions in the cases of: -
9.1 Sun Real Estate Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Mumbai 1 2015- TIOL-956-CESTAT-MUM wherein the Tribunal considered whether receipt of consideration in Indian rupees, supported by Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates (FIRCs), satisfies the requirement of "receipt in convertible foreign exchange" under Rule 3(2) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005. It was not disputed that the appellant 14 received payment in Indian rupees through Deutsche Bank and that FIRCs were issued by the authorised dealer. The Tribunal held that FIRCs are issued only in respect of foreign exchange and, in the present case, expressly certified that the amounts were not received in non-convertible rupees. Relying on Notifications issued under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, particularly FEMA Notification No. 9/2000-RB and FEMA Notification No. 14/2000-RB, the Tribunal observed that receipt of payment in Indian rupees from the account of a bank situated outside India and maintained with an authorised dealer is deemed to be repatriation of realised foreign exchange. Consequently, such receipt is to be treated as receipt in convertible foreign exchange. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that mere receipt of consideration in Indian currency does not disentitle an assessee from export benefits when the remittance originates from abroad through authorised banking channels and is evidenced by FIRCs. The condition prescribed under Rule 3(2) of the Export of Services Rules, 2005 was therefore held to be satisfied. The Tribunal further held that security services and air travel services having a direct nexus with export of services qualify as input services. The appeal was allowed, except to the extent of the amount already held admissible by the lower authority.15
9.2 Mitusubishi Heavy Industries India Pvt Ltd. Vs. CCE (2017 (9) TMI 358 CESTAT New Delhi Division Bench) where the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, ruling that the payment received was in convertible foreign exchange, meeting the criteria for export of service. Additionally, the demand for service tax liability and penalty was deemed unsustainable due to legal and factual analysis, leading to the appeal being allowed. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's services qualified as exports under the "Business Auxiliary Services" category, ultimately setting aside the impugned order.
9.3 Dassault Systemes Simulia Private Ltd Vs. CCGST & CE (2023 (6) TMI 497 CESTAT Chennai Division bench) where the Tribunal ruled in favor of appellant on service tax demands and Cenvat Credit issues. The Tribunal set aside the demands for service tax under 'Technical Testing and Analysis Services' and 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services, ruling in favor of the appellant as the services were considered exported. Additionally, the Tribunal rejected the demand for reversal of Cenvat Credit for exempted services due to procedural lapses and allowed the appellant's claim for Cenvat Credit on meal passes and group insurance services.
Therein the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. 16 9.4 Novell Software Development India Private Limited Vs. CST (2018 (3) TMI 999 CESTAT, Bangalore Division bench) where the appellant, an exporter of Information Technology and Software Services, filed refund claims under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006-CE (NT), for unutilised input service credit. The refunds were rejected solely on the ground that export proceeds were not received in convertible foreign exchange, as payments were routed through overseas banks and ultimately credited in Indian rupees. The Tribunal held that receipt of consideration in Indian rupees through foreign banks under authorized banking channels constitutes deemed receipt of convertible foreign exchange under FEMA regulations. Relying on settled judicial precedents including BBC World Services India Pvt. Ltd., Sun Area Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., and J.B. Boda & Co., the Tribunal ruled that the refund condition stood satisfied. Accordingly, rejection of refund claims was held unsustainable, and all appeals were allowed with consequential relief.
10. Heard both sides and carefully considered rival submissions and the case laws cited.
17
11. The Ld. Consultant Mr. J. Krishnakumar representing the Appellant explained as to receipt of export proceeds and foreign exchange. He has drawn attention to the ratio of the decisions rendered in the cases of Sun Area Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST [2015-TIOL-956-CESTAT-MUM) and Mutsubishi Heavy Industries India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2017 (9) TMI 358-CESTAT NEW DELHI).
12. The Ld. Authorized Representative Mr. M. Selvakumar represented the Department.
13. On a careful consideration we find that the issue at hand regarding the rejection of refund claim of Cenvat Credit filed under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, availed on the input services used for export stands contrary to the orders of Tribunals in various cases mentioned above.
14. We find that from the above orders of the tribunals one of which being Sun Real Estate Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax Mumbai I 2015-TIOL-956- CESTAT-MUM where the Tribunal observed:
"When a person receives in India payment in rupees from the account of a bank situated in any country outside India 18 maintained with an authorised dealer, the payment in rupees shall be deemed to have repatriated the realized foreign exchange to India. In the present case, the payment in Indian rupees was received from foreign country through Deutsche Bank. Therefore, the said Indian rupee is nothing but foreign exchange repatriated from foreign country to India. Therefore, such payment in rupees is equal to the foreign exchange."
15. Respectfully following the Tribunal's ruling, which has also been followed in other rulings, I hold that the appellant has satisfied the condition prescribed under Rule 3(2)(b) of Export of Service Rules, 2005 and accordingly the impugned orders contrary to the same are set aside with consequential reliefs, if any, as per the law.
(Order pronounced in open court on 17.02.2026) Sd/-
(VASA SESHAGIRI RAO) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MK