Export refund claims cannot be denied on unnotified jurisdictional objections where prescribed certification and basic scrutiny requirements are otherwise satisfied.

Under the service tax export refund scheme, refund claims supported by the prescribed certification and documentation were not to be denied on a hyper-technical jurisdictional objection where the claim was processed through the registered office and the scheme required only basic scrutiny of correlation between input services and exports. The Tribunal also held that rejection on grounds not raised in the show cause notice could not be sustained, because the appellate reasoning had travelled beyond the foundation of the proceedings. On that basis, the adverse order was set aside and the original refund sanctions were restored, with consequential relief to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the refund claims under the service tax export refund scheme were required to be filed and sanctioned only by the jurisdictional authority of the registered unit from which the export-related services originated; and (ii) whether rejection of the refund claims on grounds not raised in the show cause notice could be sustained in light of the refund scheme and the prescribed certification procedure.

Issue (i): whether the refund claims under the service tax export refund scheme were required to be filed and sanctioned only by the jurisdictional authority of the registered unit from which the export-related services originated

Analysis: The refund claims were made under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 06.10.2007, as amended by Notification No. 3/2008-ST dated 19.02.2008, which required the exporter to file the claim before the jurisdictional Deputy/Assistant Commissioner subject to satisfaction of the prescribed conditions. The dispute turned on whether, where two separate service tax registrations existed for different units, the refund relating to the Visakhapatnam unit could be processed through the Kolkata jurisdiction because the registered office was located there. The impugned order treated the separate registrations as decisive and held that the refund had to be processed by the Visakhapatnam jurisdiction. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's position that the certification and claim documentation reflected the refund being claimed through the registered office and that the scheme, read with the applicable circular, emphasized basic scrutiny and certification of correlation rather than a hyper-technical denial on the registration point.

Conclusion: The jurisdiction-based objection was not sustained, and the refund denial could not stand on that ground.

Issue (ii): whether rejection of the refund claims on grounds not raised in the show cause notice could be sustained in light of the refund scheme and the prescribed certification procedure

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the objection relating to the particular registration and jurisdiction was not raised in the show cause notice, and the appellate authority had travelled beyond the foundation of the proceedings. It also relied on Circular No. 120/01/2010-S.T. dated 19.01.2010, which recognized that the refund scheme had been simplified by self-certification under Notification No. 17/2009-S.T., with the departmental role limited to basic scrutiny, and referred to the broader principle that only correlation between input services and exports was required. The Tribunal therefore treated the certification-based refund mechanism as sufficient for sanction where the documents were otherwise in order, and held that the adverse order could not be supported on an extraneous ground.

Conclusion: The rejection on grounds beyond the show cause notice was unsustainable, and the refund claims were liable to be restored.

Final Conclusion: The impugned appellate order was set aside and the original refund sanction orders were restored, resulting in allowance of the assessee's appeals with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: In refund schemes governed by prescribed certifications and basic scrutiny, an authority cannot deny refund on a ground not put in the show cause notice, and the claim should not be rejected on a hyper-technical jurisdictional objection where the scheme conditions and certification evidence otherwise support the claim.

---