Export service tax refund cannot be denied for procedural lapses when corroborative documents prove nexus with exports.

Refund of service tax under the export-service notification could not be denied merely for non-fulfilment of every procedural condition where the nexus between the input services and export was established by corroborative documents. Invoices and export records such as airway bills, bills of lading, export invoices, buyer details and shipment references were relied on to correlate CHA, clearing and forwarding, technical testing and analysis, and courier services with exports. A written agreement under Notification No. 41/2007-ST was required only where applicable, so its absence did not by itself defeat the claim when the essential linkage was otherwise proved. Refund was admissible to the extent supported by evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of service tax under the export-service notifications could be denied for non-fulfilment of every procedural condition when the linkage between the exported goods and the services was established by corroborative documents.

Analysis: The refund claims had been scrutinised service-wise by the adjudicating authority, which sanctioned only the portion where correlation with export was established and rejected the remainder where such correlation was not shown. In respect of CHA, clearing and forwarding, technical testing and analysis, and courier services, the available invoices and allied export documents such as airway bills, bills of lading, export invoices, buyer details, and shipment references were relied upon to establish the nexus. Paragraph 2(f)(iii) of Notification No. 41/2007-ST contemplated submission of an agreement only where applicable, and the absence of a written agreement in the facts of the case did not by itself defeat the refund claim when other documentary evidence established the requisite correlation.

Conclusion: Refund could not be denied merely for incomplete formal compliance where the services and export were otherwise duly correlated by supporting documents; the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The refund claims were held to be admissible to the extent supported by corroborative evidence, and the departmental appeals succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Procedural conditions in an export-refund notification do not warrant denial of refund when the essential nexus between the input service and export is established through reliable corroborative documents.

---