2023 (7) TMI 432 - AT - Service Tax

Refund claim - rejection on the ground that the invoice of service is not in the name of the appellant whereas the same is in the name of CHA - applicability of N/N. 41/2012 - HELD THAT - The CHA was appointed by the appellant as their Custom House agent who acts on behalf of the appellant, therefore as authorized person of the appellant, when CHA arranges the service provider for and on behalf of the appellant it cannot be said that the service is not received by the appellant. It is obvious that when the CHA deals with the other service providers whose services are used exclusively for the exporter, in the present case appellant, the invoices of such service providers at times are issued in favor of the CHA subsequently the CHA though bear the service charges but collect the reimbursement from the appellant. From the invoice it can be seen that, in the service provider s invoice that is issued by M/s Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd. the name of appellant is appearing as shipper name and in the corresponding invoice of the 4 Star Enterprises which is the appellant s CHA is showing the exact amount of M/s Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd. therefore the proper co-relation has been established. Considering both the invoices it is established that the service provider M/s Indev Logistics Pvt. Ltd. has provided services to the appellant M/S Khushi Enterprise. In this fact the service tax paid in respect of the services received and used for export of goods is clearly refundable to the appellant. In the case of COMMR. OF C. EX., MYSORE VERSUS CHAMUNDI TEXTILES (SILK MILLS) LTD. 2010 (4) TMI 450 - CESTAT, BANGALORE the tribunal held that even though a document is in the name of another entity but on account of assessee credit cannot be denied on such document. Considering this decision in the case of refund also even though the invoice was raised to the agent of the appellant the refund cannot be rejected as invoice raised to the agent is as good as invoice raised to the appellant being the principle. Denial of refund on pre-shipment inspection holding that the same is not input service - HELD THAT - All the services which are used for export of goods are input services for the purpose of refund under notification No. 41/2012-ST and there is no dispute that the pre-shipment inspection is indeed used in respect of the appellant s export goods - the appellant are entitled for the refund under notification No. 41/2012-ST. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
(i) Validity of service tax payment invoice for refund against export of goods under notification No 41/2012-ST.
(ii) Eligibility of pre-shipment inspection as input service for refund under notification No. 41/2012 ST.

Issue (i) - Validity of service tax payment invoice for refund against export of goods:
The appellant argued that despite the service provider's invoice being in the name of the CHA, the appellant's name was also mentioned, establishing a clear correlation between the service, service provider, and service recipient. The appellant contended that the payment of service tax was made by them upon receipt of the service, as evidenced by the CHA's invoice reflecting the same value as the service provider's invoice. The tribunal found that as the CHA acted on behalf of the appellant and the services were used exclusively for export, the service provider was considered to have provided services to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to a refund under notification No. 41/2012-ST.

Issue (ii) - Eligibility of pre-shipment inspection as input service for refund:
The appellant asserted that pre-shipment inspection was an eligible service for refund as it was conducted only in relation to the export goods. The tribunal agreed that all services used for the export of goods are considered input services for the purpose of refund under notification No. 41/2012-ST. Relying on precedents and the appellant's arguments, the tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to a refund for the pre-shipment inspection service.

The tribunal referred to various judgments supporting the appellant's claims and held that even though the invoices were issued in the name of the appellant's agent, the services were undisputedly received and used by the appellant for export of goods. The tribunal emphasized that the burden of service tax was borne by the appellant, making them eligible for a refund under notification No. 41/2012-ST. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.