Export service tax refund cannot be denied for procedural defects where documents establish nexus with exports.

Refund of service tax on export-related input services cannot be denied merely for technical defects where the documents otherwise establish nexus with exports. Cross-references in shipping bills, invoices and container numbers enabled verification, and computer-generated invoices were accepted in line with the cited precedent and Board circular. Incorrect service classification, registration under a different category, or the absence of word-for-word goods descriptions in CHA invoices was treated as non-fatal when the services were otherwise identifiable as used for export. The orders were set aside and the refund claims were remanded for fresh adjudication on merits after document verification, without insisting on procedural objections alone.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of service tax on export-related input services could be denied for want of original or computer-generated invoices, incorrect service classification, absence of specific description of goods in CHA invoices, or registration of the service provider under a different category.

Analysis: The refund claims related to services used for export of goods and the record indicated cross-references such as shipping bill numbers, invoice numbers, container numbers and other particulars enabling verification of nexus. The denial based on non-production of original invoices was inconsistent with the cited precedent and the Board circular recognising valid computer-generated documentation. The objection that port-side services were not classifiable as port services, or that service providers were registered under another category, was also rejected in view of the settled view that services rendered on the port may constitute port services and that refund cannot be denied merely on the ground of incorrect registration category. Likewise, the absence of the word-by-word description of goods in CHA invoices was not treated as fatal where the services were otherwise used for export and could be cross-verified from the documents. Mistakes in describing transport mode or service category were held to be inadvertent and not decisive against an otherwise admissible refund claim.

Conclusion: The refund claim could not be rejected on technical or procedural grounds alone, and the matter required fresh verification of the documents and merits.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the refund claims were sent back for fresh adjudication on merits after verification, without insisting on technical objections.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim for export-related service tax cannot be denied on procedural defects where the documents otherwise establish the nexus of the input services with export and the claim is substantively admissible.

---