https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279462 Refund under Notification No. 27/2012 could not be denied solely because export turnover was not reflected in ST-3 returns, as neither the notification nor Rule 5(1)(D) of the Cenvat Credit Rules imposed that separate condition. The assessee had produced chartered accountant certification and FIRC-related evidence, and export of services with foreign exchange realisation was not disputed; the omission was therefore treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive defect. The remaining refund claim was remanded for fresh examination, while the uncontested portion of the refund was upheld. en-us Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Mar 2019 22:59:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279462 Refund under Notification No. 27/2012 could not be denied solely because export turnover was not reflected in ST-3 returns, as neither the notification nor Rule 5(1)(D) of the Cenvat Credit Rules imposed that separate condition. The assessee had produced chartered accountant certification and FIRC-related evidence, and export of services with foreign exchange realisation was not disputed; the omission was therefore treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive defect. The remaining refund claim was remanded for fresh examination, while the uncontested portion of the refund was upheld. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279462