https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350662 A refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. was treated as timely where it was filed within one year and the extended time limit introduced by the later circular and Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. applied. The claim could not be rejected for non-production of the foreign commission agent's agreement because the notification did not make that document a mandatory requirement. Invoices issued by the foreign agent were sufficient evidence of the service, so the absence of the agreement alone could not defeat the refund claim. The document states that refund entitlement followed, with consequential relief. en-us Wed, 05 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Nov 2017 08:35:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350662 A refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. was treated as timely where it was filed within one year and the extended time limit introduced by the later circular and Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. applied. The claim could not be rejected for non-production of the foreign commission agent's agreement because the notification did not make that document a mandatory requirement. Invoices issued by the foreign agent were sufficient evidence of the service, so the absence of the agreement alone could not defeat the refund claim. The document states that refund entitlement followed, with consequential relief. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 05 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350662