Refund for canalised exports upheld where the substantive exporter retained nexus to export services despite MMTC being named on documents.

Refund under Notification No. 52/2011-ST could not be denied merely because shipping bills and BRCs stood in the name of MMTC, where the export was made through a compulsory canalised channel under a back-to-back arrangement and the claimant remained the substantive exporter. The Tribunal treated the appellant as the exporter for refund purposes because the foreign sale was linked to its supply, MMTC acted only as the mandated export channel, the services had a nexus with the export, and foreign exchange was realised. The refund claim was therefore admissible and the denial was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of service tax under Notification No. 52/2011-ST for exports of manganese ore made through MMTC despite the shipping bills and BRCs standing in MMTC's name, and whether the appellant qualified as an exporter for the purpose of the refund claim.

Analysis: The refund claim was examined in the context of the export restrictions on manganese ore and the export policy requiring such goods to be routed through MMTC. The contractual documents showed a back-to-back arrangement under which the appellant remained responsible for the goods, the foreign sale was linked to the appellant's supply, and MMTC acted only as the mandated channel for export. The relevant services were used in relation to the export, foreign exchange was realised, and the refund sanctioning authority had found the claim admissible. The Tribunal also noted the statutory and policy definitions treating a person holding himself out as exporter, and the canalised nature of the export did not displace the appellant's substantive role in the export transaction.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to the refund, and the denial of refund was not sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the refund sanction was restored, with consequential relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are exported through a compulsory canalised channel under a back-to-back arrangement and the claimant remains the substantive exporter with the requisite nexus to the export services, refund entitlement cannot be denied merely because the shipping documents stand in the name of the channelising agency.

---