https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344759 Refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST is determined by the substantive use of taxable services in relation to export of goods, not by the service provider's classification label. Documentation, terminal handling and bill of lading charges could not be disallowed merely because they were not shown as port services when export-linked use and service tax payment were otherwise evidenced. Refund could not be rejected only for want of separate proof that tax was deposited with the Government, and debit notes were acceptable if they contained essential particulars. For GTA and technical testing services, strict insistence on a particular invoice form or written agreement was not warranted where the material was otherwise relevant, though the testing claim required reconsideration on remand. en-us Fri, 16 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 01 Jul 2017 12:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344759 Refund under Notification No. 41/2007-ST is determined by the substantive use of taxable services in relation to export of goods, not by the service provider's classification label. Documentation, terminal handling and bill of lading charges could not be disallowed merely because they were not shown as port services when export-linked use and service tax payment were otherwise evidenced. Refund could not be rejected only for want of separate proof that tax was deposited with the Government, and debit notes were acceptable if they contained essential particulars. For GTA and technical testing services, strict insistence on a particular invoice form or written agreement was not warranted where the material was otherwise relevant, though the testing claim required reconsideration on remand. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 16 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344759