Technical omission in shipping bill cannot defeat service tax refund when commission was duly paid and no fraud is shown.

Non-mention of commission paid to the commission agent in the shipping bill, required under the amended refund notification, did not defeat the exporter's claim for service tax refund where the commission had been duly paid within time and no fraud or wrongful gain was alleged. The omission was treated as a technical or procedural defect, not a substantive breach sufficient to deny refund under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., as amended by Notification No. 17/2008-S.T. The exporter remained entitled to refund, and no substantial question of law arose to disturb that relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-mention of commission paid to the commission agent in the shipping bill, as required under the amended refund notification, disentitled the exporter from claiming refund of service tax paid on commission services.

Analysis: The claim arose under the service tax refund scheme contained in Notification No. 41/2007-S.T., as amended by Notification No. 17/2008-S.T. The only lapse was the absence of a declaration in the shipping bill, while the commission had already been paid within time and there was no allegation of fraud or wrongful gain. In these circumstances, the omission was treated as a technical defect and not as a ground to deny the refund otherwise available under the amended notification.

Conclusion: The omission in the shipping bill did not bar the refund claim, and the assessee remained entitled to refund under the amended notification.

Final Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the challenge to the refund relief failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural or technical lapse in fulfilling a refund-notification condition will not defeat the substantive entitlement to refund where the tax has been duly paid and no fraud is shown.

---