Refund claims for export-related services cannot be rejected for minor invoice defects when tax payment and service receipt are undisputed.

Refund under Notification No. 41/2007 could not be denied merely because the invoice did not explain the charges in detail or mention the service provider's registration number, where the services were received for export of goods and service tax was paid. The invoice reflected bill of lading charges and inland haulage charges, which were treated as export-related services. Since receipt of the services and payment of service tax were not disputed, the procedural defects in the invoice were insufficient to defeat the refund claim. The refund was therefore admissible and rejection on those grounds was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007 dated 6-10-2007 could be denied on the ground that the invoice did not explain the charges in detail and did not mention the service provider's registration number, despite the services being received for export of goods and service tax having been paid.

Analysis: The invoice issued by the service provider showed Bill of Lading charges and Inland Haulage charges, which were explained by the appellant as charges incurred for export-related services. The service tax element was shown in the invoice and was paid by the appellant. The Revenue did not dispute receipt of the services or payment of service tax thereon. In these circumstances, the procedural objection regarding description of charges and omission of the service provider's registration number could not defeat the refund claim under the notification.

Conclusion: The refund claim was held to be admissible and the rejection was not sustainable.

---