Export service refund hinges on actual service classification and supporting records; documentary evidence can override invoice nomenclature.

Refund under the export service exemption notification depends on whether the service actually received falls within the notified export-related category and is supported by the documentary record. Terminal handling and allied export charges were treated as covered by the residual entry, so refund was admissible. Claims described only as clearing and forwarding service or CHA service failed where the invoices did not identify a notified service, so refund was denied on classification. For goods transport agency service, the absence of consignment notes did not defeat refund because transport bills, vehicle numbers and container details matched the exports. CHA invoices routed through another intermediary were also accepted where the export papers and invoices tallied.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refund of service tax paid on terminal handling and allied export-related charges was admissible under Notification No. 17/2009-ST. (ii) Whether refund could be denied where the input service was described in the invoices as clearing and forwarding service or CHA service. (iii) Whether refund on goods transport agency service could be denied for want of consignment notes. (iv) Whether refund relating to CHA invoices issued in the name of another intermediary was inadmissible.

Issue (i): Whether refund of service tax paid on terminal handling and allied export-related charges was admissible under Notification No. 17/2009-ST.

Analysis: The exemption notification covered specified services used for export and included terminal handling charges within its residuary entry. The invoices and connected export documents showed that the disputed charges were in substance for bill of lading fees, export terminal handling, sealing and liner charges falling within the notified category.

Conclusion: Refund of Rs. 1,13,114/- was admissible and the denial was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether refund could be denied where the input service was described in the invoices as clearing and forwarding service or CHA service.

Analysis: Under the notification, the refund claim had to clearly identify the specified input service. The disputed amounts were claimed on the basis of CHA or clearing and forwarding services, while the invoices reflected those classifications rather than a notified exempt service. On that basis, the refund claim failed on classification.

Conclusion: Refund of Rs. 10,154.96 and Rs. 4,335.29 was not admissible and the denial was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether refund on goods transport agency service could be denied for want of consignment notes.

Analysis: The record showed transport bills, vehicle numbers and container numbers matching the exports and bill of lading. The absence of consignment notes was not in the face of the supporting documentary record establishing receipt of the service.

Conclusion: Refund of Rs. 4,739.92 was admissible and the denial was set aside.

Issue (iv): Whether refund relating to CHA invoices issued in the name of another intermediary was inadmissible.

Analysis: The documentary record, including the invoices and export papers, showed that the CHA service was in fact rendered in the chain of export documentation and the particulars tallied with the claim. The objection that the invoices were routed through another entity was not accepted on the evidence.

Conclusion: Refund of Rs. 3,552/- was admissible and the denial was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part, with refund granted for the amounts supported by the export and service records and the remaining refund disallowances sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund under an export service exemption notification depends on the service actually received and its classification under the notified categories, and cannot be denied where the documentary record establishes that the disputed charge falls within the notified export-related service.

---