Refund for export-related services cannot be denied for filing two claims instead of one.

Refund under Notification No. 41/2012-ST cannot be denied merely because the claimant filed the refund in two parts instead of one where the input services were used for export of goods. The export nexus and use of the services were undisputed, so the procedural objection did not defeat the substantive entitlement to refund. The denial was therefore unsustainable because a minor filing irregularity should not override the notification's purpose of relieving export-related service tax burden.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund under Notification No. 41/2012-ST could be denied merely because the assessee filed two refund claims instead of one, when the services were used for export of goods.

Analysis: The refund claim related to service tax paid on input services used in export of goods. The facts regarding export and use of the services were not in dispute. The only objection was that the assessee had filed the refund in two parts rather than in a single claim. The notification was intended to ensure that the burden of service tax on export-related services is not exported, and a minor procedural lapse should not defeat that substantive benefit when the underlying entitlement is established.

Conclusion: The refund could not be rejected merely because two claims were filed instead of one, and the denial was unsustainable.

---