Export service tax refund upheld where documentary proof and verification linked input services to export shipments despite a GTA bill naming error.

Refund of service tax on specified input services used for export was treated as admissible under Notification No. 17/2009-ST where the exporter produced the prescribed Form A-1 particulars, invoices, bills, bank realisation certificates and a chartered accountant's certificate. The claim was supported by verification of payment records, party ledgers and bank statements, establishing that the tax-paid services related to export shipments. A discrepancy in the consignee or appellant name on some GTA bills was regarded as a typing error and did not defeat the claim, and the assumption that consignment notes were unverified was found incorrect. The refund was therefore allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund of service tax paid on specified input services used for export was admissible under Notification No. 17/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009 despite the discrepancy in the consignee or appellant name on some GTA bills and the alleged lack of verification of consignment notes.

Analysis: The adjudication records showed that the exporter had furnished the required Form A-1 particulars, original invoices and bills, bank realisation certificates, and a chartered accountant's certificate as contemplated by clause 2(j) of the notification. The refund claim was supported by verification of the relevant payment particulars, party ledgers and bank statements, and the service tax paid on the specified services was found to relate to the export shipments. The discrepancy in the name on the GTA bills was treated as a typing error and not as a denial of the underlying claim, while the Commissioner (Appeals) had proceeded on an incorrect assumption that the consignment notes were not verified.

Conclusion: The refund was held admissible and the assessee succeeded.

---