https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329304 Refund under Notification No. 17/2009-ST could not be denied for curable documentary defects where export, tax payment, and document correlation were otherwise established. For CHA services, a mismatch between the CHA named in the shipping bills and the actual service provider did not defeat eligibility when the export consignments, invoices, shipping bills, invoice numbers, and container numbers were co-relatable. For courier services, omission of the IEC code on invoices was treated as a procedural lapse because the exporter's details, goods description, and export transaction were otherwise verifiable. Refund was therefore allowed for both services and the rejection was set aside. en-us Wed, 11 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Jun 2016 18:15:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329304 Refund under Notification No. 17/2009-ST could not be denied for curable documentary defects where export, tax payment, and document correlation were otherwise established. For CHA services, a mismatch between the CHA named in the shipping bills and the actual service provider did not defeat eligibility when the export consignments, invoices, shipping bills, invoice numbers, and container numbers were co-relatable. For courier services, omission of the IEC code on invoices was treated as a procedural lapse because the exporter's details, goods description, and export transaction were otherwise verifiable. Refund was therefore allowed for both services and the rejection was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329304