https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344495 Procedural non-compliance with EXP-1 and EXP-2 could not defeat the substantive benefit of Notification No. 18/2009-ST where export activity was undisputed and the exporter had received services from an overseas commission agent. The order applied the principle that procedural lapses should not deny an exemption or refund entitlement when the underlying substantive conditions are satisfied. On that basis, the service tax demand under reverse charge mechanism was held unsustainable. en-us Tue, 23 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Jul 2017 11:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344495 Procedural non-compliance with EXP-1 and EXP-2 could not defeat the substantive benefit of Notification No. 18/2009-ST where export activity was undisputed and the exporter had received services from an overseas commission agent. The order applied the principle that procedural lapses should not deny an exemption or refund entitlement when the underlying substantive conditions are satisfied. On that basis, the service tax demand under reverse charge mechanism was held unsustainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 23 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344495