Export refund entitlement cannot be denied for invoice classification defects when service tax was actually paid on eligible services.

Refund of service tax on input services used for export cannot be denied merely because the supplier's invoice did not describe the services as Port Services or because the supplier was not classified under that category. The refund notification was read as requiring actual payment of service tax on eligible export-related services, not proof that the service provider held the same registration or classification. Procedural defects in the supplier's documentation were treated as curable and not fatal to the exporter's substantive refund claim. The supporting circular was applied to confirm that the exporter's entitlement should not be defeated by the provider's separate procedural lapse, and the refund claim was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of service tax paid on services used for export of goods could be denied on the ground that the services were not shown as Port Services in the service provider's invoices and the service provider was not classified under that category.

Analysis: The refund notification required the exporter to have actually paid service tax on the specified services used for export. It did not impose a condition that the service provider must have been registered or must have paid tax under the same service classification. The supporting circular clarified that refund to exporters does not require verification of the service provider's registration certificate and that procedural violations by the service provider are to be dealt with separately. The services in question were found to be in the nature of Port Services, and the defect in documentation was held to be only procedural. The principle that an exporter should not be denied a substantive refund benefit for an otherwise eligible claim because of a procedural lapse in the service provider's invoices was applied.

Conclusion: The refund could not be denied on the stated ground, and the assessee was entitled to the refund claim.

---