Refund of service tax for export-related services cannot be denied merely for unverified invoice-description mismatch.

Refund of service tax under Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. was held admissible for export-related specified services where the invoices linked the services to export activity and tax had been paid by the service provider. A refund claim could not be denied merely because the invoice description was said to differ from the specified service wording, especially when no verification was made at the service provider's end. The relevant services included technical testing and analysis, technical inspection and certification, customs house agent services, and clearing and forwarding services. The operative principle is that unverified discrepancies in invoice nomenclature do not by themselves defeat refund eligibility when the underlying export nexus and tax payment are established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to refund of service tax paid on export-related services under Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. when the invoices described the services as specified services, and whether the refund could be denied on the basis of a mismatch in description without verification at the service provider's end.

Analysis: The refund claim related to services used for export and covered services such as technical testing and analysis, technical inspection and certification, customs house agent services, and clearing and forwarding services. The original adjudicating authority had examined the invoices and found the services to fall within the notification. The later appellate reversal proceeded mainly on the wording of the invoices, without factual verification from the service providers' end. Where service tax had been paid by the service provider on the invoiced services and the invoices disclosed services linked to export activity, there was no justifiable basis to deny the refund merely on a presumed mismatch in description.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the refund on the disputed amount, and the Revenue's appeals were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms refund eligibility for export-related specified services where tax has been paid and the invoices support the claim, and it rejects denial of refund based only on unverified invoice description discrepancies.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund of service tax under the notification cannot be denied solely on the basis of a perceived mismatch in invoice description when the services invoiced are connected with export activity, tax has been paid, and no contrary verification from the service provider's end is undertaken.

---