Export refund eligibility: CHA-issued invoices and pre-shipment inspection services did not bar refund where export nexus was established.

Refund of service tax under Notification No. 41/2012-ST may not be denied merely because the service provider's invoice is issued in the name of the CHA, where the documents show clear correlation, the CHA acted for the exporter, and the service was actually used for export of goods. Pre-shipment inspection used in relation to exported goods was treated as an eligible input service for refund purposes. On these facts, the refund denial was held unsustainable and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refund of service tax under Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29.06.2012 could be denied merely because the service provider's invoice was issued in the name of the CHA and not directly in the name of the exporter, where the CHA subsequently invoiced the exporter and the service had been used for export of goods. (ii) Whether pre-shipment inspection service qualified as an input service for refund of service tax under the said notification.

Issue (i): Whether refund could be denied because the invoice was in the name of the CHA.

Analysis: The service was arranged by the CHA acting on behalf of the exporter, and the invoices showed clear co-relation between the service provider's invoice and the CHA's invoice raised on the exporter. The exporter's name appeared on the service provider's invoice, the amounts matched, and the services were used exclusively for export of goods. On these facts, the invoice addressed to the CHA was treated as sufficient to establish receipt of service by the exporter.

Conclusion: Refund could not be denied on the ground that the original invoice was issued to the CHA; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether pre-shipment inspection service was an input service eligible for refund under the notification.

Analysis: Services used in relation to export of goods were treated as input services for the purpose of refund under Notification No. 41/2012-ST. Pre-shipment inspection was found to have been used in relation to the exporter's goods and there was no dispute as to its nexus with export activity.

Conclusion: Pre-shipment inspection service was eligible for refund, and this issue was also decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The denial of refund was unsustainable, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: For refund under the export service notification, a service invoice issued in the name of the exporter's CHA does not defeat eligibility where the documents establish clear co-relation, the CHA acted on behalf of the exporter, and the service was actually used for export of goods.

---