<?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>2017 (5) TMI 343 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342605</link>
    <description>Refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST cannot be denied on merely technical grounds where services received in the port area are export-related and covered by the CBEC circular clarifying port services for refund purposes. Minor defects in transport documents, including missing particulars, were treated as procedural irregularities that did not defeat a substantively identifiable export-linked claim. Refund also could not be refused merely because invoices were issued in the name of the head office when receipt of input services was otherwise undisputed. However, where transport-service invoices were not produced, the matter required factual verification and was remanded for examination before refund sanction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 May 2017 08:26:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=467813" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 343 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342605</link>
      <description>Refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST cannot be denied on merely technical grounds where services received in the port area are export-related and covered by the CBEC circular clarifying port services for refund purposes. Minor defects in transport documents, including missing particulars, were treated as procedural irregularities that did not defeat a substantively identifiable export-linked claim. Refund also could not be refused merely because invoices were issued in the name of the head office when receipt of input services was otherwise undisputed. However, where transport-service invoices were not produced, the matter required factual verification and was remanded for examination before refund sanction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342605</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>