Export service tax refund cannot be denied on documentary formalities where services were used for exports and tax was paid.

Refund under the export service tax notification was held admissible where the exporter produced a contract confirmation showing commission payable at a fixed FOB-based rate, since the notification required proof of tax payment through agreement or other documents and did not insist on a formal agreement. Refund on inland transportation used for export consignments was also allowed because the services were integrally connected with export movement, including empty-container transport, and the notification did not bar consolidated freight claims. Refund could not be denied merely because the service provider was registered under a different service head, as actual export-related use of the service and payment of tax were the ative factors. The rejection was set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refund of service tax paid on commission agency services could be denied for want of a formal agreement when the exporter produced a contract confirmation showing commission payable at a fixed rate on FOB value; (ii) whether refund on inland transportation services used for export consignments could be denied where the transport was integrally connected with export movement and the charges were not separately bifurcated; (iii) whether refund could be denied merely because the service provider was not registered under the particular head of CHA/Port Services.

Issue (i): Whether refund of service tax paid on commission agency services could be denied for want of a formal agreement when the exporter produced a contract confirmation showing commission payable at a fixed rate on FOB value.

Analysis: The notification required proof of service tax payment through agreement or other documents, and did not prescribe any particular form of evidence. The contract confirmation on record established that commission was payable at a fixed rate on FOB value of export goods. The refund condition was therefore satisfied. The objection was also covered by prior tribunal authority holding that invoices or similar supporting documents were sufficient compliance.

Conclusion: The objection was untenable and the refund on this count was admissible.

Issue (ii): Whether refund on inland transportation services used for export consignments could be denied where the transport was integrally connected with export movement and the charges were not separately bifurcated.

Analysis: The transportation was used in connection with export goods, including movement of empty containers for stuffing and dispatch. The charges were consolidated and no specific prohibition in the notification barred such refund. Tribunal precedent had already accepted refund for transport of empty containers and related freight used for export operations.

Conclusion: The objection was unsustainable and the refund on this count was admissible.

Issue (iii): Whether refund could be denied merely because the service provider was not registered under the particular head of CHA/Port Services.

Analysis: The governing circular and binding precedent made it clear that denial of refund could not rest solely on the service provider's registration under a different service head when the services were actually rendered for export and service tax had been paid. Classification or registration under a particular head was not decisive for refund eligibility under the notification.

Conclusion: The objection was untenable and the refund could not be denied on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The refund rejection was set aside and the appellant's claim was held to be admissible with consequential relief as per law.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund under the export service tax notification cannot be denied when the exporter proves actual use of the specified services for export and satisfies the notification through reasonably acceptable documentary evidence, and denial cannot be founded merely on the service provider's registration classification.

---