<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (11) TMI 234 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267425</link>
    <description>Refund of service tax claimed for export-related services could not be denied on procedural objections where the invoices, export documents, transport records, bills and ledgers were examined and reconciled with the shipping bills. The objection on place of removal was found unsustainable, and the alleged Cenvat credit issue relating to unrelated telephone services was held not to affect the refund claim for the specified export services. A defect in the authorization letter was treated as a curable technical omission because the claim and supporting papers were filed by the admitted authorised signatory and authority was not in dispute. Denial of refund on these technical grounds was unjustified, and the refund was held admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2016 16:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=404406" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 234 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267425</link>
      <description>Refund of service tax claimed for export-related services could not be denied on procedural objections where the invoices, export documents, transport records, bills and ledgers were examined and reconciled with the shipping bills. The objection on place of removal was found unsustainable, and the alleged Cenvat credit issue relating to unrelated telephone services was held not to affect the refund claim for the specified export services. A defect in the authorization letter was treated as a curable technical omission because the claim and supporting papers were filed by the admitted authorised signatory and authority was not in dispute. Denial of refund on these technical grounds was unjustified, and the refund was held admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267425</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>