Refund under SEZ export scheme cannot be denied for technical invoice mismatch when substantive tax treatment remains unchanged.

Refund of service tax paid for services used by an SEZ unit could not be rejected merely because invoices split rental into immovable property rent and furniture and fixture rent, while the tax payment challan described the rent in consolidated form. The record showed that the taxable value was treated consistently, and the Department did not establish any tax difference or prejudice from the invoice description. In a beneficial export-linked refund scheme, a purely technical mismatch in documentation does not defeat substantive entitlement where the revenue position remains unchanged. The refund rejection was therefore unsustainable, and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of service tax paid in respect of services used by an SEZ unit could be denied on the ground that the underlying invoices split rental into immovable property rent and furniture and fixture rent, while the tax payment challan reflected a consolidated description.

Analysis: The services were received during the post-negative-list service tax regime. The record showed that the appellant had treated the taxable value in a consolidated manner while paying tax, and the Department did not demonstrate any tax difference or prejudice caused by the manner in which the invoices described the components of rent. The rejection of refund rested only on a technical objection to invoice presentation and did not address the substance of the transaction or the beneficial character of the export-linked refund scheme.

Conclusion: The refund could not be denied on such technical grounds, and the rejection was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the appellant was entitled to consequential relief in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund under a beneficial export-related fiscal scheme cannot be denied merely because of a technical mismatch in invoice description when the substantive tax treatment and revenue position remain unchanged.

---