https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277834 Refund under Notification No. 41/2007 could not be denied merely because the invoice did not explain the charges in detail or mention the service provider's registration number, where the services were received for export of goods and service tax was paid. The invoice reflected bill of lading charges and inland haulage charges, which were treated as export-related services. Since receipt of the services and payment of service tax were not disputed, the procedural defects in the invoice were insufficient to defeat the refund claim. The refund was therefore admissible and rejection on those grounds was not sustainable. en-us Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Dec 2018 00:40:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277834 Refund under Notification No. 41/2007 could not be denied merely because the invoice did not explain the charges in detail or mention the service provider's registration number, where the services were received for export of goods and service tax was paid. The invoice reflected bill of lading charges and inland haulage charges, which were treated as export-related services. Since receipt of the services and payment of service tax were not disputed, the procedural defects in the invoice were insufficient to defeat the refund claim. The refund was therefore admissible and rejection on those grounds was not sustainable. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 27 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277834