TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether refund of service tax under Notification No. 17/2009-ST was admissible in respect of CHA service where the name of the CHA in the shipping bills differed from the actual service provider. (ii) Whether refund of service tax under Notification No. 17/2009-ST was admissible in respect of courier service where the IEC code number was not mentioned on the invoices.
Issue (i): Whether refund of service tax under Notification No. 17/2009-ST was admissible in respect of CHA service where the name of the CHA in the shipping bills differed from the actual service provider.
Analysis: Refund cannot be denied merely because the CHA named in the shipping bills is different from the actual service provider, if the export consignments and the service invoices are otherwise verifiable and co-relatable through documents such as shipping bills, invoice numbers and container numbers. The mismatch was treated as a matter of documentary correlation rather than a failure of eligibility under the notification.
Conclusion: Refund on CHA service was held admissible in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether refund of service tax under Notification No. 17/2009-ST was admissible in respect of courier service where the IEC code number was not mentioned on the invoices.
Analysis: Non-mention of the IEC code on courier invoices was held to be only a procedural defect when the exporter's details and description of goods were otherwise available on the invoices and there was no dispute about export or tax payment. The defect did not defeat substantive entitlement to refund.
Conclusion: Refund on courier service was held admissible in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The refund claim under the notification was allowed for both services, and the rejection order was set aside with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Refund under the export service notification cannot be denied on account of curable documentary or procedural defects when the export, service payment, and co-relation of documents are otherwise established.
TaxTMI 
