Export refund relief cannot be denied for wrong notification filing when substantive tax payment and export are undisputed.

Refund under an export-oriented beneficial notification could not be denied on a technical objection where export of goods and payment of service tax under reverse charge on commission to an overseas agent were undisputed. Filing the claim under the wrong notification number did not defeat relief, and procedural conditions intended for verification were treated as condonable when the substantive entitlement was established. As the lower authority did not clearly identify any violated condition of the applicable notification, the assessee was held entitled to the refund benefit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim could be denied merely because it was filed under the wrong notification and because certain procedural conditions of the applicable refund notification were not complied with, when the export of goods and payment of service tax under reverse charge were undisputed.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the export of goods and the discharge of service tax on commission paid to an overseas agent were not in dispute. The refund application had been made under Notification No. 17/2009, though the proper notification was Notification No. 18/2009. The lower appellate authority had not clearly identified which conditions of the applicable notification were violated. Relying on the earlier decision involving identical facts, the Tribunal accepted that the notification was an export-oriented beneficial scheme and that procedural requirements meant for verification could be condoned where the substantive fact of export and tax payment was established.

Conclusion: The refund could not be rejected on the stated technical ground, and the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the refund notification.

---