Export of service versus intermediary classification governs refund eligibility; nexus objections alone do not defeat the claim.

Services rendered on one's own account to an overseas recipient are treated as export of service, not intermediary service, where the provider does not merely facilitate a supply between two parties. On that basis, refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the refund notification cannot be denied solely on an intermediary classification. A separate objection based on alleged lack of nexus between input services and output services also does not by itself defeat refund absent an allegation of irregular credit or challenge to actual export. Limited factual verification may still be required for FIRC particulars supporting the claim.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's output services were intermediary services so as to deny refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012; (ii) whether the refund claim could be rejected for alleged lack of nexus between certain input services and output services; (iii) whether the matter required remand for verification of the appellant's name in the FIRC documents.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's output services were intermediary services so as to deny refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012.

Analysis: The services were examined in the light of the contractual arrangement and the settled test for intermediary services, namely existence of a facilitation role between two parties, a principal-agent type relationship, and absence of performance of the main service on one's own account. The reasoning relied on the consistent view that where the service provider renders services on its own account to an overseas recipient and the recipient is outside India, the activity is export of service and not intermediary service. The reasoning also drew support from the treatment of intermediary under Rule 2(f) of the Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 and Section 2(13) of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Conclusion: The appellant's services were not intermediary services, and the rejection of refund on this ground was unsustainable and in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim could be rejected for alleged lack of nexus between certain input services and output services.

Analysis: The refund denial on nexus was tested against the pre- and post-amendment position under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The reasoning accepted that, where the department does not allege irregular availment of credit or challenge actual export of services, refund cannot be denied merely on a nexus objection. The discussion also reflected that the statutory formula for refund governs the claim and that denial on this ground, without an allegation of irregular credit, is not justified.

Conclusion: The objection of absence of nexus did not justify rejection of the refund claim and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the matter required remand for verification of the appellant's name in the FIRC documents.

Analysis: The records showed that the FIRC issue was confined to whether the appellant's name appeared correctly in the documents supporting the refund claim. As the dispute was limited to verification of those particulars, the appropriate course was a factual re-examination by the original authority.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the original authority for limited verification of the FIRC documents.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the substantive objections to refund, but the refund claim was sent back only for limited factual verification of the FIRC particulars.

Ratio Decidendi: A service rendered on one's own account to an overseas recipient is not intermediary service, and refund under Rule 5 cannot be denied on a nexus objection in the absence of a valid statutory basis or allegation of irregular credit; limited factual verification may nonetheless be remanded.

---