Refund of service tax for export input services cannot be denied for technical lapses or provider classification errors.

Refund of service tax paid on input services used for export of goods could not be denied on technical discrepancies in invoices, alleged mismatch with export documents, non-production of certificates, or classification objections where the services were shown to have been used for export. Classification errors by the service provider were not a valid ground to refuse refund at the recipient end, and the submitted export-correlation documents were treated as sufficient. The plea of unjust enrichment was held inapplicable in a refund claim relating to export of goods. Refund was therefore allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of service tax paid on input services used for export of goods could be denied on technical discrepancies, disputed classification of services, and the plea of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The refund claim arose from services used for export and the rejection was founded on discrepancies in invoices, alleged non-tally with export documents, non-production of certain certificates, classification objections, and unjust enrichment. The services were found to have been used for export of goods, and the denial was held to rest on technical lapses rather than any substantive ineligibility. Services billed by the port and by inspection agencies were treated as eligible input services, and any error in classification by the service provider was held not to be a ground for denying refund at the recipient end. The documents relating to shortage explanation and export correlation were found to have been submitted, and unjust enrichment was held inapplicable in a refund claim relating to export of goods.

Conclusion: Refund could not be denied on the stated grounds, and the assessee was held entitled to the refund with consequential relief.

---