Export refund eligibility upheld where service tax on banking services and foreign commission agent services was duly evidenced and credit-settled.

Refund under Notification No. 41/2007 was found admissible for service tax paid on banking and other financial services used for exports where bank records and attested statements established actual tax payment linked to the export transactions. The Tribunal also held that service tax on foreign commission agent services, discharged through the Cenvat credit account under reverse charge, satisfied the notification condition; refund could not be denied merely because payment was not made in cash. The denial of refund was therefore set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refund of service tax paid on banking and other financial services used for exports was admissible under Notification No. 41/2007; (ii) whether service tax paid on foreign commission agent services through Cenvat credit, instead of cash, satisfied the condition for refund under Notification No. 41/2007.

Issue (i): Whether refund of service tax paid on banking and other financial services used for exports was admissible under Notification No. 41/2007.

Analysis: The bank statements showed the commission charges as well as the service tax debited to the appellant's account, and the entries were attested by the bank. The tax payment was identifiable with the export transactions, and the documentary evidence established actual payment of service tax on the banking services covered by Serial No. 14 of the notification.

Conclusion: Refund was admissible in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether service tax paid on foreign commission agent services through Cenvat credit, instead of cash, satisfied the condition for refund under Notification No. 41/2007.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the question had already been settled in the appellant's own earlier cases and that the issue was no longer res integra. It held that service tax liability on such import of service could validly be discharged through the Cenvat credit account, and there was no basis to deny refund merely because payment was not made in cash.

Conclusion: Refund was admissible in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007 was held to be allowable on both disputed services, and the denial of refund was set aside with consequential relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the evidence shows actual payment of service tax on export-linked services and the tax liability under reverse charge is discharged through Cenvat credit, refund under the export-refund notification cannot be denied merely because the tax was not paid in cash.

---