Refund on export-related input services upheld despite invoice mismatch where shipping documents confirmed the claimant's export activity.

Refund of service tax on export-related input services cannot be denied solely because an invoice names another unit, where the shipping bill and related export documents identify the claimant unit as the exporter and link the services to the same shipment. The tribunal read the invoices together with the shipping bill and found that the services were used for the claimant's export activity; the nominal mismatch in the invoice description did not defeat the refund claim. The refund was therefore admissible and the appellate rejection was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of service tax paid on export-related input services could be denied merely because some invoices were issued in the name of another unit, when the shipping documents showed export by the claimant unit.

Analysis: The invoices and shipping bill were examined together. Although one invoice mentioned the Sahibabad unit, the corresponding shipping bill bore the exporter details of the Haridwar unit and matched the same shipment number. On that basis, the services covered by the invoices were treated as having been used for the export activity of the claimant unit, and the mere mention of the other unit's name on the invoice was held not to defeat the refund claim.

Conclusion: The refund was admissible and the rejection sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund of export-related service tax cannot be denied on a purely nominal mismatch in invoice description where the connected export documents establish that the services were actually used for the claimant's export.

---