Export service tax refund cannot be denied for procedural mismatches in shipping bill or service provider registration.

Refund of service tax under Notification No. 41/2007-ST for input services used in export of goods cannot be denied on purely procedural objections. Where the services were received for export and service tax payment was not in dispute, a mismatch between the name on the shipping bill and the CHA who paid the tax, or the fact that the service provider was registered under a different service category, did not defeat the claim. Board Circular No. 112/6/2009-ST clarified that supplier registration certificates need not be separately verified for this refund, and any registration-related lapse by the service provider is to be addressed independently. The assessees were therefore entitled to the refund.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of service tax paid on specified input services used for export of goods under Notification No. 41/2007-ST could be denied on the ground that the name on the shipping bill differed from the CHA who paid the tax or that the service provider was registered under a different service category.

Analysis: The refund claim arose from service tax paid on services used in relation to exported goods. The disputed grounds were procedural in nature and did not negate the fact that the services were received for export and that service tax had been paid. Board Circular No. 112/6/2009-ST clarified that refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST does not require verification of the supplier's registration certificate and that procedural violations by the service provider are to be dealt with separately. The Tribunal also relied on its earlier view that, once payment of service tax on the relevant services is not in dispute, refund cannot be denied merely because of the supplier's registration classification or similar technical objections.

Conclusion: The refund could not be denied on the stated procedural grounds, and the assessees were entitled to the refund claim.

---