Refund under Notification No. 41/2012-ST may cover multiple shipping bills, but claims below the minimum threshold remain inadmissible.

Notification No. 41/2012-ST permits a refund claim to cover more than one shipping bill, so long as the prescribed particulars for each export are furnished; the notification is not confined to shipping bill-wise claims. It also preserves the minimum-claim threshold under Paragraph 3(j), so claims below Rs. 500 are inadmissible. For export-linked pre-inspection services, the amended notification recognises such services as eligible refund inputs when used for export purposes, and their performance inside the manufacturer's plant does not by itself exclude relief. The result is composite relief on eligibility, with rejection only on the threshold condition.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a refund claim under Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29th June 2012 must be filed shipping bill wise or may cover more than one shipping bill in a single claim; (ii) whether refund claims below Rs. 500/- are barred under Paragraph 3(j) of the Notification; and (iii) whether pre-inspection services performed inside the manufacturer's plant fall outside the ambit of specified services eligible for refund.

Issue (i): whether a refund claim under Notification No. 41/2012-ST dated 29th June 2012 must be filed shipping bill wise or may cover more than one shipping bill in a single claim.

Analysis: Paragraph 1(c) permits a claim containing one or more shipping bills, and the prescribed form requires disclosure of the shipping bill details, exported goods, specified services used, and tax paid. Paragraph 3 does not impose any requirement that each claim be restricted to a single shipping bill or that FOB value be computed shipping bill wise for separate claims. The notification, read as a whole, allows a composite claim for multiple shipping bills so long as the particulars are furnished.

Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee; a single refund claim may cover more than one shipping bill.

Issue (ii): whether refund claims below Rs. 500/- are barred under Paragraph 3(j) of the Notification.

Analysis: Paragraph 3(j) was construed as imposing a threshold condition that excludes claims below the stipulated amount. On the facts, the modification made by the appellate authority on this point was found to be correct.

Conclusion: Decided in favour of the Revenue; claims below Rs. 500/- are not admissible.

Issue (iii): whether pre-inspection services performed inside the manufacturer's plant fall outside the ambit of specified services eligible for refund.

Analysis: The amended notification and the earlier tribunal ruling recognize specified services as taxable services used beyond the factory or other place of production or manufacture. Pre-inspection, when linked to export and covered by the amended notification, was held to qualify for refund, and the circular was not treated as excluding such services on the facts considered.

Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee; the refund for such specified services is admissible.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded on the principal eligibility questions and failed only on the minimum-claim threshold issue, resulting in partial relief to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund under Notification No. 41/2012-ST is not confined to a single shipping bill per claim, but the monetary threshold in the notification remains enforceable, and services qualifying as specified services under the amended notification are eligible when used for export-related purposes.

---