https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280833 A jurisdictional objection that was not raised before the first appellate authority could not be introduced for the first time before the Tribunal. In the refund context, minor documentary discrepancies, including address variations, did not by themselves defeat a claim for Service Tax refund on input services used for exports when eligibility was otherwise established in principle. The discussion also notes that supporting proof of payment and export realisation could still be required before the adjudicating authority for processing the refund. The Revenue's challenge was therefore rejected, and the assessee's refund entitlement was left intact subject to furnishing the required proof. en-us Wed, 25 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 May 2019 06:32:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280833 A jurisdictional objection that was not raised before the first appellate authority could not be introduced for the first time before the Tribunal. In the refund context, minor documentary discrepancies, including address variations, did not by themselves defeat a claim for Service Tax refund on input services used for exports when eligibility was otherwise established in principle. The discussion also notes that supporting proof of payment and export realisation could still be required before the adjudicating authority for processing the refund. The Revenue's challenge was therefore rejected, and the assessee's refund entitlement was left intact subject to furnishing the required proof. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 25 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280833