Export-related service tax refund allowed where invoices could be linked to consignments despite not being in the recipient's name.

Refund of service tax on export-related services was held admissible where the invoices issued by the CHA or rail operators, though not directly in the appellant's name, contained the container numbers, shipping bill numbers and the appellant's name. Those particulars were sufficient to correlate Terminal Handling Charges, B.L. Charges, Rail Freight, Inland Haulage Charges and Agency Charges with the exported consignments. The absence of invoices in the recipient's own name was not decisive when the documents otherwise established that the tax was paid on eligible export-related services and could be linked to the exports. Denial of refund solely on that ground was unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of service tax paid on export-related services was admissible when the invoices were issued by the CHA or rail operators and not directly in the name of the appellant service recipient.

Analysis: The refund claim related to Terminal Handling Charges, B.L. Charges, Rail Freight, Inland Haulage Charges and Agency Charges used in connection with exports. The invoices showed the relevant container numbers, shipping bill numbers and the appellant's name, enabling correlation of the services with the exported consignments. The absence of invoices in the appellant's own name was held not decisive where the documents otherwise established that the tax had been paid on admissible export-related services and the services could be linked to the exports.

Conclusion: The refund was admissible and denial on the ground that the invoices were not issued directly by the service provider in the appellant's name was unjustified.

---