https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346050 For refund claims under Notification No. 41/2007-ST, actual use of a service for export was treated as decisive, and the service provider's classification of that service under a different category could not by itself defeat eligibility. The refund on port-related services used for facilitating export was therefore allowed. For the balance claim, rejection for lack of proper invoices and supporting documents was not sustained outright; because export of goods was undisputed, the relevant documents had to be correlated with the exports, and the matter was remanded to the original authority for verification and a fresh decision on admissibility. en-us Wed, 01 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Aug 2017 07:17:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346050 For refund claims under Notification No. 41/2007-ST, actual use of a service for export was treated as decisive, and the service provider's classification of that service under a different category could not by itself defeat eligibility. The refund on port-related services used for facilitating export was therefore allowed. For the balance claim, rejection for lack of proper invoices and supporting documents was not sustained outright; because export of goods was undisputed, the relevant documents had to be correlated with the exports, and the matter was remanded to the original authority for verification and a fresh decision on admissibility. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 01 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346050