Refund under service tax export notification cannot be rejected for invoice defects alone; nexus with exports needs proper verification.

Refund of service tax under Notification No. 41/2007-ST could not be denied solely because supporting invoices lacked prescribed particulars, where the claimant produced certificates and other material indicating use of the services for export of finished goods. The absence of some invoice details required factual verification of the nexus between the taxed services and export activity, rather than outright rejection without examining the evidence. The matter was therefore remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration after permitting the appellant to file supporting documents.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of service tax under Notification No. 41/2007-ST could be denied merely for procedural defects in the supporting invoices and whether the matter should be remanded for verification of the linkage between the taxed services and export of goods.

Analysis: The refund claim was rejected on the ground that the invoices issued by the Courier Agency and CHA did not contain the particulars prescribed in the notification and that linkage with export of goods was not established. The appellant produced certificates and supporting details to show that the services were used for export of finished goods. The available material indicated that the lower authorities had not examined those details to verify the nexus between payment of service tax and export of goods. The absence of prescribed particulars was treated as a matter requiring verification rather than a conclusive ground to deny the claim without examining the evidence placed on record.

Conclusion: The refund rejection could not stand as made and the matter was required to be re-examined by the original authority after giving the appellant an opportunity to produce supporting documents. The appeals were allowed by way of remand.

---